[5 (library) ) w'^v^^ '^'^i ^'^^■ TOWER AT CHITTORE. FroQtitplece, Vol. I. THE ILLUSTRATP]]) HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE: BEING A CONCISE AND POPULAR ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENT STYLES OF AECHITECTURE PREVAJLING IN ALL AGES AND COUNTRIES. BY JAMES FERGUSSON, M.R.I.I5.A. AUTHOR OF ' PALACES OF XINEVEH AND FERSEPOLIS RESTORED.' r-i^^'. ' i'. ' r, ' 1=^ IN TWO VOLUMES.— Vol. I. WITH 8n0 ILLIISTllATiONS ON WOOD. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1855. Works by the same Authoi'. ILLUSTHATIONS OF THE KOCK-CUT TEMPLES OF INDIA. \h IMatcs in 'I'inird Lilliograpliy, fulio; with an Svo. Volume of Text, Plans, &c. 2Z. 7*. 6d, Ixmdon, AVeult-, 1845. PlCTrHESQIE ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANCIENT ARCHITECTUKE IN IIINIiUSI'AN. 24 Mutes in coluurod Litbograpb3-, with Plans, WixKlcuts, and explanatorj- Text, &c il. 4s. London, Hogarth, 1847. AN ESSAY ON THE ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM: witli restored I'laiis of the lemplt', and with Plans, Sections, and lietails of the Church built by Constantine the Great over the Holy S>pulclire, now knowTi as the Mos(|ue ol Omar. 16.<., or 21s. half Kussia. London, Weale, 1847. AN ESSAY ON A PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM OF FORTIFICA- TiO.\, with Hints for its Application to our National Defences, lis. 6d. Ixindon, ■NVeulc, 1849. THE PERIL OF PORTSMOUTH. French Flkets and English Kkkts. With a I'lan. Third EditUm. 3s. London, Murray, 1853. AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF IlKAUTY IN AKT, more especially with reference to Architecture. Royal 8vo. 31s. 6<<. London, Ixingnians, 1849. OBSERVATIONS ON THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NATIONAL GAL- LKUY, and NATIONAL KKCOUU OFFICE; with Suggestions for their Improve- ment. 8vo. London, Weale, 1849. THE PALACES OF NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS RESTORED; ,\n l-Xsiiy on Ancii'iit Assyrian and Persian Architecture. 8vo. 16s. London, Murray, 1851. UIMMN : riUNTEU BY WILXJAM CIXtWRS AND SONS, STAMiX>RI> 8TKKET, A>'1> ClIARIXG CUU3S. PREFACE. There are few branches of artistic or scientific research Avhich have made such rapid and satisfactory progress duiing the last fifty years as those which serve to illustrate and elucidate the arts and architecture of bygone ages. Not only has an immense mass of new materials been collected, but new principles of criticism have been evolved, and studies which in the last century" were the mere amusement of the amateur, and cultivated only as matters of taste, are now becoming objects of philosophical inquiry, and assuming a rank among the most important elements of historical research. Beyond this, which is perhaps the most generally attractive view of the matter, there is every reason to hope that the discovery now being made of the pi'in- ciples that guided architects in the production of their splendid works in former days, may ultimately enable us to equal, if not to sui'pass, all that has been hitherto done in architectural design. AVith these inducements, added to the inherent beauty and interest which always attach themselves more or less to the objects of architec- tural art, the study of it ought to be one of the most iTseful as well as one of the most attractive which can occupy the attention of the public, and no doubt would be much more extensively cultivated were it not for the difficulties attending its pursTiit. Owing to the very nature of the subject, books that treat of archi- tecture are generally large, and from the number and size of the illustrations required are also very costly, so that an architectural / library is one of the most cumbersome as well as one of the most expensive that can be got together. But even among those who can collect it, few have the patience to study the plans, sections, and details which are indispensable for a scientific exposition of the various parts of a building; and after all, without some practical knowledge of the art of architecture, or some experience at least in plan drawing, it is almost impossible to restore a building so completely to the mind's eye, from a technical description, as to enable one who has not seen it to judge correctly of its form, and still less of its merits or its foults as a work of art. Even when the difficulties of understanding and realizing architectural language have been completely comj^uered, it b vi rilEFACE. still requires years and years of study before the historical information scattered through hundreds of vcdumcs on the principles of design can be mastered so as to enable the student to grasp the whole subject, or understand all its bearings. Tlie object of the present work is to remedy to some extent these inconveniences, and, by supplying a succinct but popular account of all the principal buildings of the world, to condense within the com- pass of two small volumes the essence of the infonnation contained in the ponderous tomes composing an architectural library ; and by generalizing all the styles known, and assigning to each its relative value, to enable the reader to acquire a more complete knowledge of the subject than has hitherto been attainable without deep study. Up to the present time it has been hardly possible to accomplish this, and even now very much more information is required before it can be done satisfactorily for all styles ; but on comparing this work with any of the older productions of its class, it is easy to see hoAv much progi-ess has been made, and how much nearer we are to completeness than we ever were before. At the time when Piranesi finished his splendid ' Illustrations of Architecture ' (about the year 1783), the only styles known or thought worthy of attention were the Koman and the styles derived from it, with a daAvning suspicion of the value of Greek art. Somewhat later (in 1800), when Durand publii^hed his famous ' Parallcle,' he devoted one plate out of sixty-three to Golhic art, and half a plate sufficed for all that was then kn(nvn of Egyptian, while the Indian and many of the outlying styles were almost wholly miknown. Considerable progress had been made in 1811 when Agincourt pub- lished his celebrated work ; but even then Gothic art was looked upon as a mere barbarous decadence from purer styles, and the revival of classic art was hailed as a real renaissance of true art to which the human intellect had awakened after the long night of the dark ages. By far the most comprehensive attempt made to supply the deficiency is that of Wiebeking, in a work completed in 1831. With truly German industry, he re-engraved ever}"- drawing he could collect of architec- tural objects, and described them all with most laudable patience ; but from want of arrangement or of criticism, his work has little value beyond being a storehouse for future reference, and a landmark to show how much has been done even since it was completed. Several other attempts have been made to supply the deficiency complained of by such works as those of Iianiee and Batissier in France, and G wilt's ' Encyclopaedia of Architecture ' in our own country, besides articles in all our principal encyclopaedias ; but none of these have quite mot the difficulty, either from being too short or too exclu- sively pojiular, or honi being mixed up with other matter to which illustration of the fine art architecture is made subordinate. As these works have failed in utilising the immense mass of PIIEFACE. vii information now availal)lo, cither from being published too early or fi-om other causes, it is believed that there is still room for another attempt, which, without being too popular, should yet be intelligible in every part to the general reader, and without attempting to be scien- tific, should from its comprehensiveness convey even to the profes- sional artist a certain amount of knowledge not easily accessible to all. It can of course make no pretensions to compete with the splendid monographies of individual buildings which crowd the shelves of an architcctui-al library, nor even with the separate and detailed histories of local styles. The study of these is indispensable to a perfect ac- quaintance with the subject, but even this may be facilitated by a general resume of the whole. One of the first difficulties of so extensive a subject is to make such an arrangement of the different styles as shall prevent any one being described before those which preceded it in time when there was any connexion between the two, and consequently before the preliminary steps by which it attained its form have been explained and elucidated. A strictly chronological arrangement will not meet this difficulty without frequent and abrupt interruptions of the con- tinuity of the narrative, nor will one which is purely topographical. In the following pages a combination of the two methods has been attempted ; and though it is only one of many that might be proposed, each of which would have some special merit of its own, still it seems to be the arrangement which meets to the greatest extent the real difficulties of the case. Except in one or two instances, there are no chronological inversions of any importance, nor any very marked in- terruption to the continuity of the narrative. The first and most important division seems both obvious and con- venient. By separating all architectural objects into Christian and non-Christian (the latter might be called heathen, or pagan, if these were not generally used as terms of rc^iroach), we obtain two gTcat divisions, very nearly equal in the importance of the objects described, and very easily distinguished from one another. As the Christian styles in every instance arose out of the Pagan, which in almost all instances are the older, the Pagan of course take precedence ; and if antiquity alone were considered, the Egy]itian ought to be the first described : but in that case, after going through that style, and the Assyrian, which comes next, we naturally pass to the Greek and Eoman, and the narrative must then be interrupted to make way for the Indian, the Mexican, and other styles, which have no connexion either with those which preceded, or which folloAved in other parts of the world. To avoid this a classification of a more topographical nature has been adopted ; and commencing from tlie b2 viii PREFACE. East, all those styles which have no internal relation with those of the West are first described, snch as the Indian, Chinese, Mexican, and other similar styles. Passing from these, another group presents itself in Western Asia, almost equally independent. This style arose on the banks of the Euphrates, and spread eastward to the Indus and west- ward to the shores of the Mediterranean, uninfluenced, so far as we can now see, by the styles on either hand. Having in this manner got rid of thesis two great groups, the reader is at liberty to pursue without interruption the history of that great style which arose in Egypt, and which, when trans|danted into (Ireece, and mellowed bv the influence of Assvria, bloomed there into greater beauty than ever was known before, but only to perish with the civilization it represented in Imperial liome. Two great styles, the Christian and the Saracenic, spi-ungfrom the Roman, which was the gi'cat transitional style between the ancient find modern world. As the Christian was the earliest bom, and the first to die, it might seem to claim precedence ; but the Saracenic attained matunty as eaily as the age of Charlemagne, while the Gothic styles were still in their infancy. There is therefore no incon- gruity in treating it first and among the Pagan styles, nor any incon- venience felt from this course, as the influence of the Christian on the Saracenic style was never sufficiently important to render a previous knowledge of the former indisiK-nsable, except in the one instance of the Turkish style of Constantinople. P>ut tliis style, at present at least, is too insignificant and too little known to requir-e a change in classification to make room for it. The Christian styles are easily divided into two great groups by a line drawn from the head of the Adriatic to near the entrance of the Gulf of Finland, All to the eastward of this line belongs to the Sclavonic races and the Byzantine school of art ; all to the westward to the Teutonic and Celtic races and Gothic school. 'Iliese aie so distinct from one another, and so easily defined, that either might be taken up first, and treated independently of the other; but as the Gothic is certainly derived most directly from Kome, and is by far the most impoi-tant style of the two, it seems natural to give it the precedence, and the Byzantine, which is half a European, half an Asiatic style of art, thus assumes its proper place as a supplement to the groat Christian style of Western Europe. This is at least its true position in our present state of knowledge: further researches may entitle it to assume a higher ground. The minor divisions of these styles are so fully explained in the text, that it is needless repeating here what is much more easily under- stood and appreciated in its proper place in the body of the work. One great division of art still remains to be described before the subject is complete. It is that style which arose in the middle rilEi'"x\.CE. ix of the fifteenth ccntiiiy, cxihiiinatcd Avith the rebuikling of St. Peter's ;it l\t»me, and has prevailed all over Europe during the last three centuries and a half. It is infinitely inferior to the Gothic, which preceded it, as an artistic form of art, but nearly as important from the size and splendour of the buildings in which it is employed, and fully as interesting to the philosophical student of the subject, not only for what it teaches, but because it is an index to the mind of Europe during the period in which it prevailed, and is the lesson all must study who would attempt to understand the future of the noble art of architcctuie. Although every possible care has been taken in selecting the best ■ authorities for the statements in the text of the work, as well as the subjects for illustration, still no one acquainted with the state of the literature of architecture will need to be told that in many branches the materials do not exist for a correct description of the style, and that the drawings which are available are frequently so inexact, and with scales so carelessly applied, that it is impossible at times to avoid error. The plans thi'oughout the book are on too small a scale to render any minute errors apparent, but being drawn to one scale (100 feet to 1 inch), they are quite sufficient as a means of com- parison, even when not mathematically correct. They thus enable the reader to judge of the relative size of two buildings by a mere inspec- tion of the plans, as correctly as he could by seeing the two buildings themselves, without actually measuring them in all their details. As a general rule, the sections or elevations of buildings, throughout the book, are drawn to a scale double that of the plans, or 50 feet to 1 inch ; but, owing to the great size of many of them, it has been found impossible to carry out this in all instances : where it has not been effected, the departure from the rule is always noted, either beloAv the woodcut or in the text. No lineal dimensions are quoted in the text except such as it is believed can be positively relied upon, and in all instances these are reduced to English feet. The supei-ficial measures, like the plans, are quite sufficient for comparison, though not to be relied upon as abso- lutely correct. One great source of uncertainty as regards them is the difficulty of knowing at times what should be included in the building referred to. Should, for instance, the Lady Chapel at Ely be considered an integral part of the Cathedral, or the Chapter-house at AN'ells ? Should the sacristies attached to Continental cathedrals be considered as part of the church ? or such semi-detached towers as the south-western one at Bourges ? What constitutes the temple at Karnac, and how much of this belongs to the Ilypostyle Hall ? These and fifty other questions occur in almost every instance, which may lead two persons to very X PREFACE. different conclusions regarding the .superficial dimensions of a build- ing, even witliout the cnors inherent in imperfect materials. When cither the drawing from which the woodcut is taken was without a scale, or tlie scale given could not be depended upon, " No scale" has been put under the cut to warn the reader of the fact. When the woodcut was either too large for the page, or too small to be distmct if reduced to the usual scale, a scale of feet has been added under it, to show that it is an exception to the mle. Capitals, windows, and details which are meant to illustrate forms or construction, and not particular buildings, are drawn to any scale that seemed best to express the purpose for which they are inserted ; when they are remarkable for size, or as individual examples, a scale has been added ; but this is the exception, not the rule. One object that has been steadily kept in view in this work has been to show that architecture may be efficiently illustrated by plates on a small scale, yet stifficiently clear to convey instruction to professional architects. Every pains has been taken to secure the gTcatest possible amount of accuracy, and in all instances the sources from which the woodcuts have been taken are indicated. jNIany of the illustrations are froria original drawings, and of buildings never before published. Tlie above remarks with regard to the want of information or the incompleteness of illustration hardly apply to the Pagan styles. There are very few of those which might bo classed under the head of " Non- (Jhristian styles " which have not been as fully and as correctly illus- trated as their importance desei-ves, though more information regarding some points would be both desirable and convenient. But very few of the Christian styles were illustrated at all at the beginning of this century, and even at this time such a country as Spain is almost a terra incognita to architects. Now, however, that people arc getting satiated with the plaster prettincsses of the Alhambra, we may hope that attention will be turned to the grander and simpler works of the Christians in that country, and that this chapter will not remain the blank it has hitherto been. The English Gothic is, ot all the Christian styles, the one which has been most fully examined and illustrated ; numberless books have been pul)lished on the subject in this country ; and, as information is obtain- able in almost any form regarding it, all that is attempted here is to compare it with other similar styles, an^ i'S.^.^V *■ KO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. r- i . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. '2U. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. .30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 30. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. L&t at Allahabad Honeysuckle ornament Cajiitjil of Lilt on the Gunduck . . Siirkh Minar, Cahiil View ol'Sanchi Tope Plan of Tope at Sanchi Section of 'i"oj)e at .Sanchi . . Stone balustrade forming the en- closure at Sanchi Tope of Amravati Tower on Giriyek Hill Tope at Bimeran Tope, .*^nlt.anpore B.^se of a Tee cut in the rock at Ajunt-i Rock-cut Tope at Ajunta . . Small model found iu the Tope at Sultanpore Section of Cave at Karli Plan of Cave at Karli, double the usual size View of Cave at Karli Section of Cave Xo. 10, Ajunta. . Lomas Kishi Cave !^at Gurbha Cave Tiger Cave, Cutt^ick Ganesa Cave Cave No. 11, at Ajunta Cave No. 2, at Ajunta Cave at Baugh Durbar Cave, Salsette Pillar in G.inesa Cave, Cuttack . . Pillar in \'ihara No. 17, at Ajunta Pillar at Ajunta Tliujiaramya Tojh' The .layat.awauarama — Ruins of PoUonarua Shocmadoo Pagoda, Peguc . . Half-jilan of Shocmadoo Pagoda. . Burmese Kioum Half plan of Temjile of Boro Bud- dor I'.levation and Section of Temple of Boro Buddor Section of one of the smaller domes at Boro Buddor Elevation of principal dome at Boro Buddor Small tem|)lc at Brambanam Nepalese Kosthakar Kaths, Mahavcllij«)re Temple of V'imala ."^idi, Mount Abu PART I. AGE KG. 7 44. 7 45. 7 40. 8 47- 10 51. 11 52. 11 53. 54. 11 55. 14 10 56. 18 57. 18 58. 59. 19 20 60. 61. 20 24 62. 63. 24 04. 25 65. 28 66. 29 67. 30 68. 32 69. 32 70. 33 33 71. 34 72. 35 73. 37 74. 38 75. 39 76. 42 77. 78. 46 79, 51 80. 51 81. 53 82. 57 83. 84. 57 85. 86. 58 87. 88. 58 89. 60 90. 62 91. 65 92. 7le .. ., 148 96. Elevation of Building at Chunjuju 149 97. Elevation of part of Palace at Zavi 150 98. Plan (if Palace at Zayi . . . . 150 99. Casa lie las Jlonjas, Uxmal . . .. 151 100. Interior of a Chamber, Uxmal .. 152 101. Apartment at Chichcn .. . . 15'2 102. Diagram of Mexican construction 153 103. Ruins of House of SJanco Capac, in Cuzco 15G 104. House of the Virgins of the Sun 156 105. Peruvian Tombs 157 106. Elevation of Wall of Tambos .. 158 107. Sketch Plan of Walls of Cuzco . . 158 108. View of Walls of Cuzco .. ..159 109. North-West Palace at Nimroud. . 166 110. Plan of Palace at Khorsabad .. 167 111. Restoration of Northern Angle of Palace Court, Khorsabad. . .. 169 112. Section of principal Rooms at Khorsabad 170 113. Three principal Rooms at Khor- sabad 171 114. Elevation of Stylobate of Temple 172 115. Section of Stylobate of Temple .. 172 116. Terrace Wall at Khorsabad .. 173 117. Interior of a Yezidi House at Bukra, in the Sinjar 174 118. Existing Remains of Propylaa at Khorsabad 175 119. Hall of South-West Palace.. .. 176 120. Pavement Slab from the Central Palace, Koyunjik 177 121. Pavilion from the sculptures at Khorsabad 179 122. Exterior of a Palace, from a Bas- relief at Koyunjik 180 123. Obelisk of Divanubara . . . . 181 124. Plan of Babylon 182 125. Restored Elevation of the Birs Nimroud 183 126. Restored Plan of the Birs Nimroud 183 127. Representation of a Temple .. 184 128. Elevation of Wall at Wurka .. 185 129. Platform at Passargadre . . . . 187 130. Elevation of ^Masonry at Passar- gada> 187 131. View from Top of Great Stairs at Persepolis 189 132. Stairs to Palace of Xerxes .. ..191 133. Propvla?a 192 134. Palace of Darius 192 135. Facade of Palace of Darius at Per- sepolis 193 136. Tombof Dariusat Naksh-i-Rustam, representing the faraile of his palace surmounted by a Talar. . 194 137. P.ilace of Xerxes 195 138. Restored plan of Great Hall of Xerxes at Persepolis 195 139. Pillar of Western Portico .. ..196 140. Pillar of Northern Portico.. .. 196 141. Restored Section of Hall of Xerxes 197 142. Kaabah at Istakr 198 NO. PAOK 143. Tomb of Cyrus 199 144. Plan of Solomon's Temple . . . . 202 145. DiagramSection ofSolomon'sHouse 202 146. Plan of Temple at Jerusalem as rebuilt by Herod 204 147. Capital of Pillar in subterranean entrance to Temple at Jerusalem 205 148. Elevation of Tumulus at Tantalais 207 149. Plan and Section of Chamber in Tumulus at Tantalais , . . . 207 150. Rock-cut Frontispiece at Doganlu 208 151. Lycian Tomb 209 152. Rock-cut Lycian Tomb . . . . 210 153. Rock-cut Lycian Tomb .. ..211 154. Rock-cut Lycian Tomb .. ..211 155. Ionic Lycian Tomb 212 156. Diagram of Pyramids . . . . 218 157. Section of King's Chamber and of Passage in Great Pyi-amid . . 219 158. Pyramid of Saccara 221 159. Sarcophagus of Mycerinus, found in Third Pyramid 222 160. Pillar at Beni Hassan 226 161. Tomb at Beni Hassan 226 162. Pillar from Beni Hassan . . , . 227 163. Pillar from Rhamession, Thebes.. 228 164. Pilliu- from Sedinga 228 165. Pillar from the Portico at Dendera 229 1G6. Caryatide Pillar from the Great Court at Wedinet-Habou . . . . 229 167. Rhamession at Thebes 230 168. Section of Palace of Thothmes III., Thebes 232 169. Plan of Hypostyle Hall at Karnac 233 170. Section of central portion of Hy- postyle Hall at Karnac . . . . 233 171. South Temple of Karnac .. .. 234 172. Section on A B of above . . . . 235 173. Plan of Temple at Edfou, Apollo- nopolis JIagna 236 174. View of Temple at Edfou . . ..237 175. Bas-relief at Tell el Amarna .. 238 176. Facade of Temple at Dendera .. 238 177. Plan of Temple at Kalabsehe .. 239 178. Section of Temple at Kalabsche.. 239 179. Viewof Temideat Philaj .. ,, 239 180. Plan of Temple at Phihc .. ,.240 181. JIammeisi at Elephantine . . . . 240 182. Plan and Section of Rock-cut 'femjile at Ipsamboul . . . . 241 183. Plan and Section of Tomb of Jla- ncpthah at Thebes 243 184. 185. Great Labyrinth . . . . 245 186. Pavilion at Modinct-Habou. . .. 247 187. View of Pavilion at Jledinet- Habou 247 188. Elevation of a House 248 189. Pyramids at Meroo 250 190. Section of Tomb near the Pyra- mids of Gizeh 252 191. Vaulted Drain beneath the South- East Palace at Nimroud . . . . 253 192. Arch of the Cloaca .Maxima, Rome 253 193. Arches in the Pyramids at ]\Ieroc 254 194. West View of the Acropolis re- stored 255 XVlll J.IST UF ILLUSTKATIONS. KO. PAGE 195. Section and Plan of Tomb of Atre- iis at Myceiia; 257 I'JG. Base of Pillar in front of Tomb of Atreus at Mycenae 258 197. Gateway at Thoricus 259 198. Gateway at Assos 2fi0 199. Arch at Delos 2G0 200. Wall in Peloponnesus 261 201. Doorway at Missolongbi .. .. 261 202. fiatc of Lions, .Alvcena} . . . . 261 203. Plan of the Acropolis at Athens.. 262 204. Temple at -Egina restored . . , . 263 205. Ancient t'orinthian Capital . . 267 206. Pillars of Tenii)los at Delos and Corinth, and Parthenon, Athens 268 207. The Parthenon 269 208. Ionic order of Erechtheium at Athens 271 209. Order of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates '-'72 2 1 0. Order of the Tower of the Winds, Athens 273 211. Carvatide Figure from the Erech- theium 274 212. Caryatide Figure in the British iMuseum 274 213. Tclamones at Agrigentum . . . . 275 214. t^mall Temple at Khamnus . . . 276 215. Plan ofTemjile of Apollo at B;issai 276 216. Plan of Parthenon at Athens . . 276 217. Plan of Great Tcmide at Agri- gentum 276 218. .'Section of the Parthenon ,. ..278 219. Part Section, part Elevation, of Great Temple at Agrigentum . . 278 220. Plan of Temple of Ceres at Eleusis 279 221. Section of Temple of Ceres at Eleusis 279 222. Plan of Temple of Jupiter Olym- pius at Athens 280 223. Plan of Erechtheinm 280 224. Section of En'chtlioium . . . . 280 225. View of Erechtheium .. .. 281 226. Choragic Monument of Lysicrates 282 227. Plan of Theatre at Di-amyssus . . 283 228. Plan and Section of an Etruscan Temple 287 229. Tombs at Ca.stel d'Asso . . . . 289 2.30. Mouldings from Tombs at Castel d'Asso 290 231. Plan of HeguliiiiGaleassi Tomb . . 291 232. Sections of IJegulini (ialeaiisi Tomb 291 233. Section of a Tomb at C-cre . . 292 234. View of principal Chamber in Kegulini Galea.. Part of Central Arcade, and upper part of Temple, Spalatro . . 359 297. Hou.s(! of I'ansa at i'ompeii .. 361 298. Aqueduct of Segovia 364- 299. Aqueduct of Tarragona . . . . 364: 300. Bridge of Trajan at Alcantara, in Spain 365 301. Plan of Palace at Al Hadhr . . 369 302. Klevation of part of the Palace at Al Iladlir 370 303. Plan of Palace at Serbistan . . 372 304. Section on line A B of Palace at Serbistan 372 305. Plan of Palace at Firouzabad . . 373 306. Doorway at Firouzabad . . . . 373 307. Partof External Wall, Firouzabad 374 308. Plan of Tak Kesra at Otesiphon . . 374 309. Elevation of Great Arch of Tak Kesra at Ctesiphon 375 310. Diagrams of Arches 381 311. Plan of the Mosque el Aksah at Jcrnsalera 384 312. View in the Mosque el Aksah at Jerusalem 385 313. Mosque of Amrou, Old Cairo .. 388 314. Arches in the Mosque of Amrou 388 315. Mosque of Ebn Touloun at Cairo 390 316. Window in Mosque of Ebn Touloun 391 317. Plan of Mosque and Tombs of Sultan Barkook 392 318. Section of Mosque of Barkook .. 392 319. Mosque of Sultan Hassan .. .. 393 320. Sectionof Mosque of Hassan, Cairo 394 321. Mosque of Kaitbey 396 322. Minaret at Tunis 397 323. Great Jlosque at Mecca . . . . 398 324. Imaret of Oulou Jamiat Erzeroum 402 325. Mosque at Tabrecz 403 326. View of ruined Mosque at Tabreez 403 327. Tomb at Sultanieh 404 328. Section of the Tomb of Sultan Khodabendah at Sultanieh . . 405 329. View of the Tomb at Sultanieh . . 405 330. Great Mosque at Ispahan . . . . 407 NO. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338, 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. S61. 362. 363. 364. Madrissa of Sultan Huscin at Is- pahan 408 Throne-room at Teheran . . . . 410 Palace at Ispahan 410 Minar at Ghazni 415 Plan of Ruins in Old Delhi . . 417 Section of part of East Colonnade at the Kootub, Old Delhi . . 418 Central Range of Arches at the Kootub 419 Minar of Kootub 420 View of Lateral Gateway of ,Ium- ma Mesjid, Jaunpore . . . . 422 Lall Durwaza Mosque, Jaunpore 423 Plan of Mosque at Mandoo . . . . 425 Courtyard of Gi-eat Mosque at Mandoo 426 Section of Mosque at Ahmedabad 427 Pendentive from Mosque at Old Delhi 428 Great Mosque at Delhi from the N.E 430 Pendentive in Tomb at Old Delhi 433 Tomb at Old Delhi 434 Pathan Tomb at Shepree near Gualior 435 Plan of Taje Mehal, Agra . . . . 437 Section of Taje Mehal, Agra . . 437 Plan of Tomb of Jlahomet at Bee- japore 440 Section of Tomb of JIahomct at Beejapore . . . . .^ 441 Diagram illustrative of Domical Construction 442 Hall in Palace at Allahabad . . 446 Plan of Imambara at Lucknow . , 449 Mosque at Cordoba 453 Interior of Sanctuary at Coi'doba 454 Screen of the Chapel of Villa Vi- ciosa. Mosque of Cordoba . . 455 Sta. Maria la Blanca 457 Church of St. Christo de la Luz, Toledo 458 Giralda, .Seville 459 Plan of the Alhambra, (iianada 4(il Mosque of Soliman 466 Mosque of Achmet 467 PART II. 365. 366. 367. 308. 369. 370. 371, 372, 373. Plan of the Church of San Cle- mente at Rome 484 Plan of the original Basilica of St. Peter at Rome 487 Basilica of St. Peter 489 Plan of Sta. !Maria ]\Iaggiore . . 490 View of Sta. ilaria Maggiorc . . 491 Section of Sta. Agnese . . . . 492 Plan of Sta. Agnese 492 Half Section, half Elevation, of the Church of San Vincenzo alle Tre Fontane 493 Church of S. ApoUinare in Classe, Ravenna 495 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. Arches in Church of San ApoUi- nare Nuovo 495 Part of Apse in S. ApoUinare in Chisse, Ravenna 496 S. ApoUinare ad Classeni, Ra- venna 496 Church at Parenzo in Istria . . 497 Plan of Church at Torcello . . 498 Apse of Basilica at Torcello .. 498 Plan of San Miniato, Florence . . 500 Section of San Miniato, near Flo- rence 501 View of the Cathedral at Pisa . . 502 Plan of Sta. Maria, Toscanella . . 504 XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. ■NO. PAGE 384. View of the Interior of Sta. Maria, Toscaiiclla 505 385. Klevation of the Exterior of Sta. Maria, Toscanella 505 386. riaii of the Tomb of Sta. Costanza, Home 509 387. Plan of San Stojihano Rotondo . . 510 388. Sti. Anjreli, reriigia 510 389. .^ti. Angcli, Perugia 510 390. Baptistery at Nocera dei Pagani 511 391. Baptistery at Nocera dei Pagani 511 392. Plan of St. Vitale, Ilavenna . . 512 393. Section of St. Vitale, Ravenna . . 513 394. Plan of S. Lorenzo at Milan . . 514 39."). Plan of Sta. Fosca, Torcello .. 516 396. Tomb of Galla Placidia, Ravenna 517 397. Plan of Tomb of Theodoric ., 518 398. Elevation of Tomb of Theodoric, Ravenna 518 399. Tower of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin 520 400. Porta Palatina, Turin . . . , 520 401. Gateway, Palazzo della Ragione, Mantua 521 402. Church at Pergamus 523 403. Church of the Nativity at Bethle- hem 525 404. Interior of the Golden Gateway . . 526 405. Order of the Golden Gateway .. 527 406. Order of the Dome of the Rock . . 528 407. Plan of the Dome of the Hock at Jerusalem 528 408. Chapel at Friuli 531 409. Plan of San Antonio, Piaceiiza . . 532 410. Section of ("hurch of San Antonio at Piacenza 533 411. ."Section and Plan of Baptistery at Asti 534 412. Plan of the Cathedral at Novara 534 413. Elevation and Section of the Fa- (^ade of the Cathedral at Novara 535 414. Half Section, half Elevation, of the Baptistery at Novara . . 536 415. Section of San Michele, Pavia . . 537 416. View of the Apse of San Michele, Pavia 537 417. Plan of ."^an Ambrogio, Milan . . 539 418. Atrium of San Ambrogio, Milan 540 419. Facade of the Cathedral at Pia- cenza 541 420. Apse of the Cathedral, Verona .. 542 421. Fa<^ade of San Zenone, Verona .. 543 422. View of Zara Cathedial . . . . 544 423. San Tomaso in Limine . . . . 546 424. San Tomaso 546 425. Plan of the Church of Romain- Motier 550 426. View of the Church of Romnin- Motier 551 427. Section of Church at Granson ., 551 428. View and Plan of the Cathedral at Zurich 552 429. Cloister at Zurich 553 430. Doorway at Basle 554 431. Reduction of an original plan of a Monastery found .at St. Gall . . 556 432. Porch of Convent at Lorsch . . 560 NO. PACE 433. Plan of the Church at Aix-la- Chapelle 563 434. Church at Nimeguen 564 435. Church at Petersherg 565 436. Baptistery at Bonn 566 437. Chapel at Cobern on the Jloselle 567 438. Plan of the Church at Gernrode 568 439. \'u'\v of West-end of Church at Gernrode 569 440. View of West-end of Abbey of Corvey 569 441. Plan of original Church at Treves 570 442. Plan ofMediteval Church at Trfeves 571 443. Western Apse of Church at Treves 571 444. Eastern Apse of Church at Treves 572 445. Plan of Church at Hilde.sheim . . 572 446. Internal View of the Church at Hildesheini 573 447. Plan of Cathedral of Wonns . . 574 448. One Bay of Cathedral at Worms 574 449. Plan of the Cathedral at Sj.ires . . 575 450. Western Apse of Cathedral at JIayence 576 451. Church at Minden ; Cathedral at Paderborn ; Church at Soest . . 577 452. Sta, Maria in Capitulo, Cologne 577 453. Apse of the Apostles' Church at Cologne 578 454. Apse of St. ilartin's Church at Cologne 579 455. Plan of Church at Laach , . , . 580 456. View of Church at Laach , . . . 581 457. Church at Zinsig 582 458. Rood Screen at Wechelburg , , 583 459. Crypt at Gollingen 583 460. Farade of the Church at Rosheim 584 401. Church at JIamioutier , . , , 585 462. Plan of Chapel at Landsberg . , 586 463. Section of Chapel at Landsberg . . 586 464. Arcade of the Palace at Gelnhausen 587 465. Cajiital, Gelnhausen 588 466. View of the Wartburg .. ., .589 467. Dwelling-house, Cologne . . , . 590 468. Back Windows in Dwelling-house, Cologne 591 469. Windows from Sion Church, Co- logne 592 470. Windows from St. Guerin at Neuss 592 471. Map of the Architectural Division of France 594 472. Diagram of Vaulting. South of France 598 473. Porch of Notre Dame de Doms, Avignon 601 474. Porch of .St. Trophime, Aries . . 602 475. A].se of Church at Alet ,. ..603 476. Internal Angle of Apse at Alet , . 604 477. Longitudinal and Cross Section of Fontifroide Church 605 478. Doorway in Church at Maguelone 606 479. Cathedral, Vienne 607 480. Plan of Church at Planes . . . . 608 481. Tower at Puissalicon 608 482. Church at Cruas 609 483. Cloister at Fontifroide .. .. 610 484. 485. Capitals at Cloister, EJne . . 611 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. XXI NO. 48ti. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 49-2. 493. 494. 49.5. 49(5. 497. 498. 499. 500. 00 1. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 511',. 517. 518. 519. .520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529, 530, 531 532 533 534 535 536 PACK Plan of St. Front, Porigoux ,. 1)12 Part of St. Front, Perigeux .. 613 Interior of Church at Souillac . 614 Plan of Cathedral at Angouleme . 615 One B.-\y of Nave, Angouleme . . 616 Plan of Cliurch at Moisj-ac .. 616 I'lan of Cathedral at Alby . . . . 617 Plan of Church at Conques . . 618 Plan of St. Benigne, Dijon . . . . 619 Church of Charroux 620 Plan of St. Martin at Tours . . 620 St. Sernin, Toulouse 622 Church at Loui>iac 623 St. Eloi, Espalioii 623 Church at Aillas <)24 Tomb at St. Pierre, Toulouse . . 624 Cathedral at Angers 627 St. Trinite', AngM's 627 View of the Interior of Leches . . 628 Plan of Church at Fontevrault . . 628 View of Chevet at Fontevrault . . 629 Elevation of one of the Bays of the Nave at Fontevrault . . . . 629 Fa5ade of Church of Notre Dame at Poitiers 630 Plan of Cathedral at Poitiers . . 631 Spire at Cunault 632 Church at Issoire 634 Elevation of Church at Issoire . . 635 Section of Church at Issoire, look- ing East 635 Elevation of Chevet, Notre Dame de Puy 636 Plan of Chevet, Notre Dame de Puv 637 Fortiticd Church at Koyat . . . . 638 Plan and Section of Basse CJMivre, Beauvais 640 External and Internal \'iew of Basse (Euvre 641 Decoration of St. ncncri'ux .. 642 Triapsal Church at (.^uerquuville 643 Plan of the Church of St. Stephen, Caen 644 Western Fagade of St. Stephen, Caen 645 Elevation of Compartment of Nave of St. Stephen, Caen . , . . 646 Diagram of Vaulting 647 Compai'tment, Abbaye des Dames, Caen 048 East End of St. Nicolas, Caen .. 649 Lower Compartment, Nave, Bayeux 650 View of Interior of Abbey at Tournus 652 I'lan of Abbey Church at Cluny 653 View in Aisle at Autun . . . . 654 View in Nave at Autun . . . . 655 Section of Narthex at Vezelay . . 655 East End, St. Menoux . . . . 656 , Chevet, St. Menoux 657 , Plan of Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris 669 , Section of Side Aisles, Cathedral of Paris 670 KG. I'AOli 537. External Elevation, Cathedral of Paris 670 538. Plan of Chartres Catlu'dral .. 671 539. Plan of Uheims Cathedial . . . . 672 540. Plan of Amiens Cathedral .. .. 672 541. View of the Facade of the Catlie- dral at Paris 673 542. North-West View of the Cathedral at Chartres 674 543. Buttress at Chartres 675 544. Buttresses at Rheims 675 545. Bay of Nave of Beauvais Cathe- dra] 678 546. Doorway, South Tiansept, Beau- vais 679 547. Plan of Cathedral at Noyon . . 680 548. Spires of Laon Cathedral .. ..681 549. View of Cathedral at Coutances . . 682 550. Ladv Cliapel, Anxerre . . . . 682 551. Plan of Cathedral at Troyes . . 683 552. Fa(,'ade of Cathedral at Troyes . . 684 553. Window of Cathedral at Lyons . . 685 554. Plan of Cathedral at Bazas . . 685 555. Plan of Cathedral at Bourges .. 686 556. Section of Cathedral at Bourges 687 557. View in the Choir of CharitB sur Loire 688 558. Chevet, Pontigny 689 559. West Front of St. Jlarie del' Epiue 690 5G0. Plan of Church of St. Oucn at Pouen 69 1 561. Cl)urch of St. Ouen at L'ouen, from the S.E 692 562. Southern Porch of St. Ouen's at Pouen 693 563. Diagram of Plans of Pillais . . 696 564. Window, St. Martin, Paiis . . 697 565. Window in Nave of Cathedral at Ch:irtres 697 566. Window in Choir of Cathedral at Chartres 698 567. Window at Pheims 698 568. Window at St. Cueu 699 569. Window at Cliartros 699 570. West Window, Chartres . . . . 609 571. Transept Window, Chartres .. 699 572. West Window, Pheims . . . . 700 573. West Window, Evreux . . . . 700 574. West Window, St. Ouen . . . . 701 575. Diagram of Vaulting 703 576. Abbey Church, Souvigny . . . . 704 577. Diai;ram of Buttresses .. .. 705 578. Flying Buttress of ^t. Ouen .. 70G 579. Flying Buttress at Amiens . . .. 707 580. St. Pferre, Caen 709 581. Lantern, St. Ouen, Rouen . . . . 710 582. Corbel 711 583. Capitals from Rheims 711 584. Rood Screen from the Sladelaine at Troyes 713 585. House at Cluny 714 586. Hou.-c at Yrieix 715 587. Portal of the Ducal Palace at Nancy 716 588. View of West-end of Church at Nivelles 719 c XXll LIST UF ILLUSTRATIONS. NU, I'AOB I MO. 589. man of Cathedral at Touniay .. 720 G40. 590. ."Section of Central Portion of 641, Church at Tourn.-iy, looking South 721 591. West Front of Notre Dame de 642. Maestricht 722 592. Spires of the Chapel of St. Sang, 643. Bruges 722 644. 593. Window in Church at Viilers, near Genappe 723 645. 594. Plan of the Cathedral at Antwerp 724 595. rian of .^t. Jacques, Lidge . . . . 726 646. 596. IJelfry at Client 729 647. 597. Cloth-hall at Ypres 730 648. 598. View of Town-hall, Brussels . . 732 599. Part of the Bishop's Palace, Li^ge 733 649. 600. Section of St. Gereon, Cologne . . 736 650. 601. Plan of St. Gereon, Cologne .. 736 651. 602. East-end of Church at (ielnhausen 737 652. 603. Plan of the Church at Jlarburg. . 738 604. Section of Church at Marburg . . 738 653. 605. Plan of Church at Altenburg . . 739 606. Plan of Cathedral at Cologne . . 740 654. 607. Intended Western Ka9ade of Ca- thedral of Cologne 742 655. 608. View of the Church at Friburg . . 744 609. Plan of Strasburg Cathedral . . 746 656. 610. West Front of Cathedral at Stras- 657. burg 747 658. 611. Plan of Hatiibon Cathedral .. 749 612. View of the Spire of St. Stephen's, 659. Vienna 751 660. 613. Plan of Church at Xanten . . .. 753 661. 614. Maria Kiiche at Miihlhausen . . 755 662. 615. View of -Maria Kirche at Aliihl- hausen 755 663. 616. St. Severus Church at Krfurth . . 756 664. 617. Anna Chapel at Heiligenstadt . . 758 665. 618. Sacraments Hausleiu at Nurem- 666. berg 759 619. Doorway of Church at Chemnitz 760 667. 620. S<'hone Brunnen at Nuremberg . . 762 621. Bay Window from St. Sebald, Nu- 668. remberg 763 669. 622. Plan of the Church at Vercelli . . 767 670. 623. Church at Asti 768 671. 624. Plan of Cathedral at Sienna ..770 672. 62.'). Fa<;.xde of the Cathedral at Sienna 771 673. 626. Plan of Cathedriil at Florence ..772 674. 627. Section of Dome and part of Nave 675. of the Cathedral at Florence .. 773 676. 628. Part of the Flank of Cathedral at 677. Florence 774 629. Dome at Chiaravalle, near Milan 775 678. 630. Plan of the part executed of St. Petronio, Bologna 776 679. 631. Section of St. Petronio, Bologna 777 632. Pl.-ui of the Cathedral of Milan ., 778 680. 633. Section of Cathedral of Milan ..779 681. 634. Design for Fa9ade of Milan Ca- thedral 781 682. 635. Duomo at Ferrara 782 636. View of St. Franc-esco, Brescia .. 783 683. 637. View of the Duomo at Prato . . 785 684. 638. CampaiiUe, Palazzo Scaligeri, Ve- 685. rona 786 686. 639. Canipiinile, S. Andrea, Mantua . . 787 687. PACK Campanile at Florence . . . . 788 North Porch, Sta. Maria Mag- giore, Bergamo 790 Palace of the Jurisconsults at Cre- mona 792 Broletto at Como 793 Ornamental Brickwork from the Broletto at Brescia 794 \Vindow from the Cathedral of Monza , , 795 Window from Verona 795 Window from Verona 795 Central Part of the Facade of the Doge's Palace, Venice , . . . 797 CJi d' Oro, Venice 798 Angle Window at Venice . . . . 799 Ponte del Paradiso, Venice . . 800 West front of the Church of San Nicola, in Bari 803 West front of Cathedral Church ofBittonto 804 Window in the south side of the Cathedral Church in Matera . . 805 San Giovanni degli Eremiti, Pa- lermo 810 Plan of Church at ]Monreale ..811 Portion of the Nave, Monrcale .. 812 Lateral Entrance to Cathedral at Palermo 814 Cathedral at Zamora 821 Collegiate Cliurch at Toro . . , . 822 St. Millan, Segovia 823 Church of the Templars at Se- govia 823 Cathedral of Leon 824 Cathedral at Burgos 825 West Front of Burgos Cathedral 826 Cimborio of Cathedral at Va- lencia 827 \io\v in the Choir of the Cathe- dral at Toledo 829 Plan of Cathedral at Seville . . 831 Plan of the Church at Batalha . . 835 Cloister of the Iluelgas .. ..837 Castle of Cocos, Cas'tille . . . . 838 Chapel at Humanejos . . . . 839 Tower at Ilescas 840 St. Paul, Saragoza 841 Doorway from Valencia . . . . 842 Tower of Karl's Barton Church . . 845 South-Fastern Transept, Canter- bury Cathedral 847 Prior de ICsti-ia's Screen, Canter- bury Cathedral 848 View of the Chapter House and .\ngel Tower, Canterbury . . 849 Plan of Canterbury Cathedral . . 850 Arch over the Black Prince's Tomb, Canterbury Cathedral . , 851 Kot^hester Cathedral, West Door- way 852 Crypt, Rochester 853 Presbytery of Chichester Cathedral 854 Chichester Cathedral 8.^5 Spire of Chichester Cathedral . . 856 Plan ol' Norwich Cathedral . . 857 LIST OF ILLUSTKATIONS. XXUl NO. HACK (388, Plan of Winelioster Cathedral . . 858 689. Five Sisters, York 859 600. Plan ol' Salisbury Cathedral . . 8(j0 t)91. Plan of the Abbey at Westminster 801 692. East End of Lincoln Cathedral , . 8(;;) 695. Windows, Chapter-house, York 8(i4 694. East Window, Carlisle Cathedral 864 695. South Window, Lincoln . , . . 865 696. Wolsey's Chajjel, Windsor . . . . 865 697. Plan of Wells Cathedral . . . . 866 698. Plan of York Cathedral . . . . 867 699. West Front of Peterborough Ca- thedral 868 700. Ground Plan, Ely Cathedral .. 869 701. Plan of Ste. Chapel le, Paris .. 870 702. Plan of St. Stephen's, Westminster 870 703. Internal Elevation of St. Stephen's Chapel, Westminster ,. ..871 704. Waltham Cross 872 705. Doorway in Rochester Cathedral 873 706. Tomb of Edward III. in West- minster Abbey 874 707. Hall of Palace at Eltham . . . . 875 708. Doorway, King's College Chapel 876 709. Doorway to Cloisters, Windsor . . 877 710. Roof of Choir, Oxford .. ..880 711. Diagrams of Vaulting 882 712. Roof of Cloister, Gloucester .. 882 713. Vault of St. George's Chapel, Windsor 883 714. Aisle in Henry VIl.'s Chapel, • Westminster 883 715. View of Lichfield Cathedral ,, 888 716. Window, Leuchars 893 717. Pier Arch, Jedburgh 894 718. Arches in Kelso Abbey ,, ,, 895 719. Three Bays of Cathedral at Kirk- wall 896 720. North Side of the Cathedral at Kirkwall 897 721. Plan of Glasgow Cathedral, and Plan of the Crypt 898 722. View in Cryj.t of Glasgow Ca- thedral .' 899 723. Crypt of Cathedral at Glasgow , . 900 724. Clerestory Window, Glasgow Ca- thedi-al' 900 725. East End of Glasgow Cathedral 901 726. East End, Elgin Cathedral . . 902 727. South Transept, Elgin Cathedral 903 728. Ornament of Doorway, Elgin ,. 903 729. Aisle in Melrose Abbey . . , . 9i)4 730. East Window, Melrose . . . . 905 731. Chapel at Koslvn 906 732. Under Chapel, P.oslyn .. ..907 733. Ornament from Holyi-ood . . . . 908 734. Ornament from Holyrood , . . . 908 735. Interior of Porch, Dunfermline . . 909 736. Window at Dunkehl restored . . 910 737. Doorway, Linlithgow 910 738. Doorway, St. Giles's, Edinburgh 911 739. Doorway, Pluseardine Abbey , . 912 740. Window in Tower, lona , , . . 912 741. Aisle in Trinitv Church, Edin- burgh .. " 913 742. Cloister, Kilconnel Abbey . . . . 916 NO. 743. 744. 745. 746. 747, 748, 749, 750. 751. 752. 753. 754, 755. 756. 757. 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765. 766. 767. 768. 769, 770. 771. 772. 773, 774, 775, 776. 777. 778. 779. 780. 781. 782. 783. 784. 785. 786. 787. 788, 789, 790, 791. 792. 793. 794, 795, 796, 797, 798. PAOB Oratory, Innlsfallen, Killarney . . 917 Cormac's Chapel, Cashel .. ,.918 Section of Chapel, Killaioe. . . . 918 St. Kevin's Kitchen, (ilendalough 919 Round Tower and Chapel, Koscrea 920 Doorway in Tower, Kildare . . 921 Doorway iu Tower, Donoughmore, Meath 922 Doorway in Tower, Antrim . . 922 Tower, Devenish 922 Tower, Kilree, Kilkenny . , , . 922 Tower, Keneith, Cork . . , , 923 Tower, Ardmore 923 Floor in Tower, Keneith , , , , 923 Doorway, Monasterboice , , . , 924 Doorway, Kilcullen, Kildare , , 924 Windows in Kovuid Towers . , 924 Window, Glendalough , , , . 924 Oratory of Gallerus 925 Tower, Jerpoint Abbey , . , , 926 House, Galway 92(5 Ballyromney Court, Cork , , , . 927 Cross at Kells 927 Plan of Church at lioeskilde , . 93U Roeskilde Domkirche 930 Plan of Cathedral of Trondhjem 932 View of Cathedral of Trondhjem 932 Plan of Church at Hitterdal . , 933 View of the Church at Hitterdal 934 Church of Urnes, Norway , , 935 Cathedral, Lubeck 937 Plan of Church of St, Mary, Lu- beck 938 View of Church of St. Mary, Lu- beck ', , , 939 Tower in the Koeblinger Strasse, Hanover 940 Church of Sergius and Bacchus . , 946 Section of Church of Sergius and Bacchus 946 Diagram of Byzantine arrangement 946 Diagram of Byzantine Pendentives 947 U))i)er Story and (Jround Floor Plan of Sta, Sophia , , . . 948 Section of Sta. Sophia at Constan- tinojile 949 Pillar in Church of St. John, Con- stantinople 952 Capital from Sergius and Bacchus 952 Entablature from Sergius and Bacchus 952 Lower Order of the Church of Sta. Sophia 953 Upper Order of Sta. Sophia . . 954 Church of Mone tes Koras . , , . 955 Plan of the Theotocos . . . , 956 Elevation of Church of Theotocos 956 Cathedral at Athens 959 Plan of Panagia Lycodemo . . 959 Church of I'anagia Lycodemo , . 960 Plan of Church at Misitra . , , , 900 Church at Misitra 901 Apse from Misitra 902 Plan of St, Mark's, Venice . . 903 Section of St, Mark's, Venice . . 904 St, Clement, Ancyra 966 c2 XXIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. NO. TAGF. 799. Church of St. Clement, Ancyra 9G6 800. Church at Trabala 967 8nl. (iroat Cliuich at Hiorapolis . . 967 802. Church at Hierapolis 9tJ7 803. Section of Great Church at Hicra- polis 968 804. Rock-cut Cluiroh at liikeiinann . . 969 805. View in Church Cave at Inkerinann 969 80G. Cave at Inkonnann 970 807. Section of Church at Pitzounda 970 808. View of Chunh at Pitzoumla .. 971 8U9. Plan of Church at Pitzounda .. 971 810. Plan of Church at Etchmiasdin . . 972 811. Plan of Church at Mokwi . . . . 972 812. Plan of Cathedral at Ani .. ..973 813. Section of Cathedral at Ani . . 973 814. Side Elevation of Cathedral at Ani 974 815. Section of Dome at Dighour .. 974 816. Church at Kouthais ." 975 817. Church at Bedochwinta . . . . 975 818. Window at Kouthais 975 819. I'lan of Tomb at Ani 976 NO. PACE 820. Tomb at Ani 97ti 821. Tomb at Varzahan 977 822. Church of St. Basil, Kioff . . . . 979 823. St. Irene, Kieff 979 824. Plan of Cathedral at Kieff . . . . 980 825. East End of the Church at No- vogorod 981 826. Cathedral at Tchemigow . . . . 982 827. Village Church near Novogorod . 982 828. Village Church near Tzarkoe Selo 983 829. Interior of ('hurch at Kostroma . 984 830. Interior of Church near Kostroma 985 831. Doorway of the Troitza Monas- tery, near Moscow 986 832. Plan of the Church of the As- sumption, Moscow 986 833. Plan of the Church of Blanskenoy, JIoscow 986 834. View of the Church of Vassili Blanskenoy, Moscow . . . . 987 835. Tower of Ivan Veliki, ^^loscow . . 988 836. Tower of Boris, Kremlin, Moscow 989 837. Holy Gate, Kremlin, Moscow . . 990 ERRATA. Page 332, /eing tliat no sham was ever permanently successful, either in morals or in art, and no falsehood ever remained long without being found o\it, and when detected it inevitably ceases to please. It is literally impossible that we should reproduce either the circumstances or the feelings which gave rise to classical art, and made it a real thing ; and though Gothic art was a thing of our country and of our o^ti race, it belongs to a state of society so totally different from anything that now exists, that any attempt to reproduce it now must at best be a masquerade, and never can be a real or an earnest form of art. The designers of the Eglinton tournament carried the system to a pcrfectlj^ legitimate conclusion when they attempted to reproduce the costumes and warlike exercises of our ancestors ; and the pre-liaphaelite painters were as fully justified in attempting to do in jiainting what was done every day in archi- tecture. Both attempts failed signally, because we had progressed in the arts of war and painting, and could easily detect the absurdity of INTRODUCTION. XXVll the practices. It is in architecture alone that the false system remains, and wo do not yet perceive the impossibility of its leading to any satis- factory result. Bearing this distinction in mind, let ns try if we can come to a clearer definition of what this art really is, and in what its merits con- sist. Let ns suppose Diagram No. I. to represent a cotton-factor}'. A X B X C X I' ..X E Diagram No. I. a warehouse, or any very common-place utilitarian building. The fir.st division, a, is not only the most prosaic form of building, but is bad building, as no attempt is made to strengthen the parts requiring it, and no more thought is bestowed upon it than if it were a garden wall or a street pavement. The second division, b, is better: the arching of the up]')er windows binds together the weakest parts, and gives mass where it is most needed t<:) resist the pressiire or thrust of the rui>l' ; and the carrying down the piers between the windows gives strength where wanted. In this stage the building belongs to civil engineer- ing, which may be defined as the art of disposing the most suitable materials in the most economical but scientific manner to attain a given utilitarian end. In the third division, c, this is carried still farther ; the materials are better disposed than in the last example, and even without the slight amoinit of ornament applied, it is a better example of engineering. The ornament is not more than would be considered in some states of society iudispensalde for even the most utilitarian buildings. The cornice may bo said to be required to protect the wall from wet ; the consoles to support it ; and the mould- ings at the springing of the arch moy be insertions required for sta- bility. In the present day, however, even this slight amount of orna- ment is almost sufficient to take it out of the domain of useful art into that of architecture. The fourth division, D, is certainly within the xxviii INTRODUCTION. limits sed as in themselves to produce a more agreeable effect; and although the height of the floors remains the same, and the amount of light introduced very nearly so, still the slight grouping of the parts is such as to produce a better class of architecture than could be done by the mere application of any amount of ornament. If it is admitted that the last division in the diagi'am is an object of architecture, which the first is not, it follows from this analysis that architecture is nothing more or less than the art of ornamental and onta- meitti'd construction. Taking, for instance, the Parthenon, to illustrate this principle far- ther. The proportions of length to breadth, and of height to both those, are instances of carefidly-studicd ornamental constiniction ; and still more so is the arrangement of the porticos and the disposition of the peiistyle. If all the pillars were plain ^(piare piers, and all the mouldings square and flat, still the Parthenon coidd not fail, from the mere disposition of its paints, to be a pleasing and imposing building. So it is with a Gothic cathedral. The proportion of length to breadth, the prf)jection of the transepts, the difterent height of the central and side aisles, the disposition and j)roportion of the towers, are all instances of oniamental construction, and beautiful even if without ornament. Many of the older abbeys, especially those of the Cistercians, are as devoid of ornament as a modem barn ; but from the mere disposition of their ]iarts they are always pleasing, and if large, aio imposing objects of architecture. Stonehenge is an instance of onaamental con- struction wholly without ornament, yet it is almost as imposing an architectural object as any of the same dimensions in any part of the world. It is, however, when ornament is added to this, and that orna- ment is elegant in itself, and appro})riatc to the construction and to the pui-poses of the building, that the temple or the cathedral ranks among the highest objects of the art, and becomes one of the noblest works of man. Even without ornamental constiiiction. a building may, by mei'e dint of ornament, become an architectural object, though it is far more difficult to attain good architecture by this means, and in true styles it was seldom attempted. Still such a building as the to^vn-hall at Louvain, which if stripped of its ornaments woulil be little better than a factory, by richness and ap}»ropriateness of (irnament alone has become a very pleasing specimen of the art. In modern times it is too much the fawhion to attempt to produce ari-hitectural effects not only without attentling to oniamental construction, but often in defiance of and con- cealing the construction that exists. When this is done, the result must be bad art, but nevertheless it is architectuio, however execrable it may be. If these premises are correct, the art of the builder consists in INTRODUCTION. xxix merely hcapins;- materials together, so as to attiiiu the desircil end in the spceilicst and readiest fashion. The art of the civil or military eug-incer consists in selecting the best and most appropriate materials for the object he has in view, and using these in the most scientific manner, so as to ensure an economical but satisfactory result. Where the engineer leaves off, the art of the architect begins. His object is to arrange the materials of the engineer, not so much with regard tt) economical as to artistic effects, and by light and shade, and f)ut- line, to produce a form that in itself shall be permanently beautiful. He then adds ornament, which by its meaning dcnibles the effect of the disposition he has just made, and by its elegance throws a charnx over the whole composition. Viewed in this light, it is evident that there are none of the objects which are usually delegated to the civil engineer which may not be brought witliin the pi'ovince of the architect. A bridge, an aciueduct, the embankment of a lake, or the pier of a harbour, are all as legitimate subjects for architcctui-al ornament as a temple or a palace. The}^ were all so treated by the Eomans, and in the middle ages, and are so treated up to the present day in the remote parts of India, and wherever true art prevails. It is not necessary that the engineer should know anything of archi- tecture, though it certainly would be better in most instances if he did ; but, on the other hand, it is indispensably necessary that the architect should understand construction. Without that knowledge he cannot design ; but it would be well if, in most instances, he could delegate the mechanical part of his task to the engineer, and so restrict himself entirely to the artistic arrangement and the ornamentation of his design. This division of labour is essential to success, and was always practised where art was a reality ; and no great Avork should be undertaken without the union of the two. Perfect artistic and perfect mechanical skill can hardly be found combined in one person, but it is only by their joint assistance that a great work of architecture can be produced. A building may be said to be architectural in the proportion in which the artistic or ornamental purposes are allowed to prevail over the me- chanical ; and an object of engineering, where the utilitarian exigencies of the design are allowed to prevail over the aiiistic. But it is nowhere possible to draw the line sharply between the two, nor is it desirable to do so. Architecture can never descend too low, nor need it ever bo afraid of ornamenting too mean objects ; while, on the other hand, good engineering is absolutely indispensable to a satisfactory archi- tectural eft'ect of any class. The one is the prose, the other is the poetry of the art of building. One gi'eat cause of the confusion which has arisen in applying principles of criticism, or in defining architecture, is to be found in persons applying to the constructive art of architecture principles derived from the imitative arts of painting or sculpture, while in fact no two things could in reality be more essentially different. Neither painting nor sculpture were ever useful arts except in the most barbarous times, and by the most remote analogy. Their object XXX INTRODUCTION. is to h'll i\ Ktovy. to reproduce an emotion, or to portray a scene or ul.jcctof nature; imd they ettVct this l)y a direct imitation, more or less correct and literal, of what actually exists, either in nature or in art. Architecture, on the t)ther hand, was originally one of the useful arts, invented to pro\nde for one of the three great wants of man- food, clothing, and shelter. The wigwam grew into a hut, the hut into a house, the house into a palace, and the palace into a tcmitle, hy well-defined and easily-traced gradations ; but it never lost the original idea of a shelter, and in its most magnificent form it is a mere ampli- fication of the original hut, but grown so solid that it seems designed to hist for ever, and so well-proportioned and so exqnisitely onia- mentod that, instead of being one of the most commonplace, it ranks with the most beautifid productions of man's hands. In none of its stages is imitation an element of composition ; no true building ever w;i.s designed to look like anything in either the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdoms. In all instances it is essentially a creation of man's mind, and designed to subserve some practical pui-pose which he has in view. A building can tell no story, and it is only by inference that it can be made to express an emotion. It is true that painting and sculittnre may bo added to a building to any extent, and a really perfect building is never without these adjiuicts ; but they are not, or at least never should be, essentials, and the building should be always complete without them. All our cathe- drals were so adorned in the middle ages, and in almost all instances this omament has been swept away. Still the buildings remain com- plete in themselves as works of architectm-e, though as grand artistic compositions their value was no doubt doubled by the association : but this does not justify us in judging of the canvas by the same niles that we would jutige of the picture that may be paint(!d upon it, or of the marble by the figure that may be cai-ved out of it. The fact is that architecture is in its origin as essentially a useful art as weaving or shipbuilding, but almost alone of all her sister-arts it is the one that has, from various concurrent circmnstances, been refin.-d into a fine art. When insj.ired with so lofty an aim as that of proviiling a house or temple wortliy of the Deity, it became one of the noblest and most beautiful of man's creations, but still essentially of human design in all its parts, and never striving to imitate nature, except in coi)yiiig, avS far as man's finite intelligence can do, those per- fect princi]tles uf design which pervade every natiiral production, to be f-mnd wherever man's knowledge extends throughout the whole uni- verse of God. The most convenient jdace for cxitlaining the principles of archi- tectin-e is when descriliing and criticising the various buildings which form the subject of the body of the work ; but it may materially assist the reader to judge of the various styles and specimens of architecture di-sf-ribi'd in tii(> following pages, if the leading principles and elements of th(! art are collected and i-iiunierat(Ml as brielly as can be done con- sistently with cleaniess. INTRODUCTION. xxxi II.— Mass. 1'he first and most obvious element of architectural grandeur is size -a lartz;o edifico being always more imposing than a small on^ ; and when tlie art displayed in two buiklings is equal, their ctt'eet is almost in the direct ratio of their dimensions. In other words, if one temple or church is twice or three times as large as anotlier, it is twice or three tunes as grand or as effective. The Temple of Theseus differs very little, except in dimensions, from the Parthenon, and, except in that respect, hardly dift'cred at all from the Temple of Jupiter at Elis, but because of its smaller size it must rank lower than the gi'eater examples. In our own country many of our smaller abbeys or parish churches display as great beauty of design or detail as oiir noblest cathedrals, but, from their dimensions alone, they are insignificant in comparison, and the traveller passes them b}', while he stands awe- struck before the portals or Tinder the vault of the larger edifices. The pyramids of Egypt, the topes of the Buddhists, the mounds of the Etruscans, depend almost wholly for their etiect on their dimen- sions. The Romans understood to perfection the value of this element, and used it in its most unsophisticated simplicity to obtain the effect they desired. In the middle ages the architects not only aspired to the erection of colossal edifices, but they learnt how they might gieatly increase the apparent dimensions of a building liy a scientific disposition of the parts and a skilful arrangement of ornament, making it look very much larger than it really was. It is in fact the most obvious, though it must be confessed perhaps the vidgarest, means of obtaining architectural grandeur, and it is also the most certain ; but a tnie and perfect example can never be produced by dependence on this alone, and it is only when combined with beauty of proportion and elegance of ornament that perfect architecture is produced. III. — Stability. Next to size the most important element is stability. By this is meant, not merely the strength requiied to support the roof or to resist the various tln^usts and pressures, but that excess of strength over mere mechanical lequirement which is necessary thoroughly to satisfy the mind, and to give to the building a moniunental character, and an appearance as if it could resist the sliocks of time or the violence of man for ages yet to come. No people understood the value of this so well as the Egyptians. The form of the PjTamids is designed wholly Avith reference to sta- bility, and even the Ilypostyle Hall at Karnac excites admiration far more by its eternity and strength than by any other element of design. All utilitarian exigencies and many other obvious means of effect are sacrificed to this, and with such success that after 8000 years still enough remains for the admiration which even the most unpoetical spectators cannot withhold from its beaiities. xxxii INTRODUCTION. In a more refined tstylo much of the bc^auty of the Parthenon arises from tin's cause. The area of each of the jiiHars of the Pantheon at Kome is umU-r 20 ft., that of those of the Parthenon is over 33 ft., and, con- sidering how much ta,ller the former are than the latter, it may be said that the pillars at Athens are twice as massive as those of the Roman temple, yet the latter have sufficed not only for mechanical, but for many points of artistic stability; but the streii<;-th and solidity of the poitico of the Parthenon, without takinj; into consideration its other points of superiority, must always render it more beautiful than the other. The massiveness which the Normans and other early Gothic builders imparted to their edifices arose more from clumsiness and want of con- stinactive skill than from design ; but, though arising from so ignoble a motive, its effect is always grand, and the rude Norman nave often surpasses in grandetir the airy and elegant choir which was afterwards added to it. In our own country no building is more entirely satis- factory than the nave at AVinchester, where the width of the pillars exceeds that of the aisles, and the Avhole is Norman in outline, thoiigh Gothic in detail. On the other hand, no building of its dimensions and beauty of detail can well be so unsatisfactory as the choir at Bcauvais. Though it has stood the test of centuries, it looks so frail, recpiires so many props to keep it up, and is so evidently an over- strained exercise of mechanical cleverness, that though it may excite wonder as an ai'chitectural tour de force, it never can satisfy the mind of the true arti.st, or please to the same extent as less ambitious exam})les. Even when we descend to the lowest walks of architecture we find this principle prevailing. It would require an immense amount of design and good taste to make the thin Avails and thinner roof of a biick and slated cottage look so picturestpie or so well as one built of i-ubble-stone, or even mud walls, and with a thatched roof: th© thickness and apparent solidity of the one will always be more satis- factory than the other. Here, as in most cases, necessity controls the architect; but when fettered b}- no xitilitaiian exigencies, there is no safer or readier means of obtaining an eft'ect than this, and when effect alone is sought it is almost impossible for an architect to err in giving too much solidity to his building. Size and stability are alone suffi- cient to produce grandeur iji architectural design, and, where sublimity is aimed at, they are the two elements most essential to its production, and are indeed the two without which it cannot possibly be attained. IV. — ^Matkrials. Another very obvious mode of obtaining architectural effect is by the largeness or expensivcness of the materials employed. A fen-ace, or even a wall, if composed of large stones, is in itself an object of considcralde grandeur, while one of the .same linerd dimensions and of the siim(^ design, if composed of brick or rubble, may appear u verj- contemj)tible object. INTRODUCTION. xxxiii Liko all the more obvious means of arcliitcctural effect, the Egyp- tiaii.s seized on this and carried it to its utmost legitimate extent. All their buildings, as well as their colossi and obelisks, owe much of their grandeur to the largeness of the materials emplo^'cd in their construction. The works called Cyclopean found in Italy and Greece have no other element of grandeur than the size of the stones or rather masses of rock which the builders of that age wei'e in the habit of using. In Jenisalem nothing was so much insisted upon by the old writers, or is so much admired noAv, as the largeness of the stones employed in the building of the Temple and its sTibsti-uctions. We can well believe how much value was attached to this when we find that in the neighbouring city of Baalbec stones were used of between GO and 70 ft. in length, weighing as much as the tubes of the Britannia Bridge, for the mere coping of a terrace wall. Even in a more refined style of architecture, a pillar, the shaft of which is of a single stone, or a lintel or architrave of one block, is always a grander and more beautiful object than if composed of a niimber of smaller parts. It is easy to see that this arises from the same feeling to which massiveness and stability address themselves. It is the expression of giant power and the apparent eternity of duration which they convej' ; and in whatever form that may be presented to the human mind, it always produces a sentiment tending towards sublimity, which is the highest efi"ect at which architecture or any other art can aim. The Gothic architects ignored this element of grandeur altogether, and sought to replace it by the display of constructive skill in the emplojnnent of the smaller materials they used, but it is extremely questionable whether in so doing they did not miss one of the most obvious and most important elements of architectural design. Besides this there is another element in the mere material which is a cause of architectural efiect ; it is that of value, though it is by no means so easy to point out why this should be the case. Still we all admire an ornament of pure gold more than one that is only silver gilt, though few can detect the difference. Persons -will travel hun- dreds of miles to see a great diamond or wonderful pearl, who would not go as many yards to see paste models of them, though if the two were laid together on the table very few indeed could distinguish which was the real, which the coimterfeit. From something of the same feeling we admire a marble building more than one of stone, though the colour of the latter may be really more beautiful and the mateiial at least as durable. In the same manner a stone edifice is preferred to one of brick, and brick to wood and plaster ; but even these conditions may be reversed by the mere question of value. If a brick and a stone edifice stand close together, the design of both being equally appropriate to the material cm- ployed, but if the bricks are so beautifully moulded, or made of such precious clay, or so carefully laid, that the brick edifice cost twice as much as the other, our judgment would be turned, and we slicmld look with more respect and admiration on the artificial tliau on the xxxiv LNTltUDUCTlON. natural inuteiial. From the same reason many elaborately carved wootleu builtlings, notwithstanding the smallness of their parts and their jierishable nature, are more to be admired than larger and more monumfutal buildings, and this merely in consequence of the evidence of labour and consequent cost that have been bestowed upon them. Irrespective of these considerations, many building materials are invaluable from their own intrinsic merits. Granite is one of the best known from its hardness and durability, marble from the exquisite polish it takes, and also for its colour, which for internal decoration is a property that can hardly be over-estimated. Stone is valuable on account of the largeness of the blocks that can be obtained, and because it easily receives a polish sufficient for external jnnjioses. Bricks are excellent for their cheapness and the facility with A\hich they can bo used, and they may also be moulded into forms of great elegance, but sublimity is nearly inqiossible in brickwork, mthout at least such dimensions as have rarely been attained by man ; the smallness of the material is such a manifest incongruity with the largeness of the parts, that even the Ivomans could not overcome the difficulty. Plaster is another artificial material. Except in monumental elec- tions it is superior to stone for internal purposes, and always better than brick from the uniformity and smoothness of its surface, the focility with wliich it is moulded, and its capability of receiving painted or other decorations to any extent. Wood should only be used externally on the smallest and least moinunental class of buiklings, and even internally is generally infe- rior to plaster. It is dark in colour, liable to warp and split, and com- bustible, which are all serious objections to its ixse, except for flooring, doors, and such puii^oses as it is now generally applied to. Cast iron is another material rarely brought into use, though more precious than any of those above enumerated, and possessing more strength, though probably less durability. Where lightness combined with strength is required, it is invaluable, and may be moulded into any form of beauty that may be designed, but it has hardly yet ever been us»'d so as to allow its architectinal qualities to be appreciated. All these materials are nearly etpially good when used honestly Oiic-h for the i)uipose for which it is best adapted ; they all become btul either when used for a pui-jiose for which they are not appropriate, or wlien one material is used either in the place of or to imitate another. Grandeur and sublimity can only be reached by the more durable and more massive class of matciials, but beauty and elegance are attainable in all, and the range of architectural design is so exten- sive that it is absurd to limit it to one class either of natural or of aitificial mateiials, or to attempt to proscril)e the use of some, and t<» insist on that of others, for purposes to which they are manifestly inajiplieable. INTRODUCTION. xxxv V. — Construction. ( 'unstructiou lias been sbo^\^l to be tbo chief aim and object of the engineer; with him it is all in all, and to construct scientifically and at the same time economically is the beginning and end of his endea- vours. It is far otheiwiso with the architect. Construction ought to be bis handmaid, xiseful to assist him in carrying out his design, but never his mistress, controlling him as to the mode of executing what he would otherwise think expedient. An architect ought always to allow himself such a margin of strength that he may disregard or play with his construction, and in nine cases out of ten the money spent in obtaining this solidity Avill be more efiective architecturally than twice the amount expended on ornament, however elegant or appro- priate that may be. So convinced were the Egyptians and Greeks of this principle that they never used any other constnictive expedient than a perpen- dicular wall or prop, supporting a horizontal beam, and half the satisfactory effect of their buildings arises from their adhering to this simple though expensive mode of construction. They were perfectly ac([uaiuted with the use of the arch and its properties, but they knew that its employment would introduce complexity and confusion into their designs, and therefore they wisely rejNicted it. Even to the pre- sent day the Hindus refuse to use the arch, though it has long been employed in their country by the Mahometans. As they quaintly express it, " An arch never sleeps," and it is true that by its thrust and pressure it is always tending to tear a building to pieces ; in spite of all counterpoises, whenever the smallest damage is done, it hastens the ruin of a building, which, if more simply constructed, might last for ages. The Romans were the first who introduced a more complicated style. They wanted larger and more complex buildings than had been before required, and they also employed brick to a great extent even in their temples and most monumental buildings. They obtained both space and variety by these means, with comparatively little trou- ble or expense ; but we miss in all their works that repose and har- mony which is the great charm that pervades the buildings of their predecessors. The Gothic architects went even beyond the Romans in this re- spect. They prided themselves on their constructive skill, and paraded it on all occasions, and often to an extent very destructive of true architectural design. The lower story of a French cathedral is gene- rally very satisfactory ; the walls are thick and solid, and the but- tresses, when not choked up with chapels, just sufficient for shadoAv and relief; but the architects of that country were seized with a mania for clerestories of gigantic height, and which should appear internally mere walls of painted glass divided by mullions. This could only be elfected either by encumbering the floor of the church with pieis of inconvenient thickness lU' by a system of buttressing outside. The xxxvi INTRODUCTION. latter Wiis the expedient adopted; but notwithstanding the ingenuity with wliieh it was caiTied out, and the elegance of many of the foinis and uvnanients used, it was singularly destructive of true architectural effect. It not only pioduces C(jnfusion of outline and a total want of rei)o.se, but it is eminently suggestive of weakness, and one cannot help feeling that if one of these props were removed, the whole would tumble down like a house of cards. This was hardly ever the case in England : tJie less ambitious dimensions employed in this coimtry enabled the architects to dis- ]»(!nse in a great measure with these adjmicts, and when flying but- tresses are used, they look more as if employed to suggest the idea of perfect security than as necessary to stability. Owing to this cause the French never were able to construct a satisfactory A^ault in consequence of the weakness of their supports; they were forced to stilt, twist, and dome their vaults to a most unpleasing extent, and to attend to constinictive instead of artistic necessities, ^\'ith the English archi- tects this never was the case ; they always Avere able to design their vaults in such forms as they thought would be most beautiful artistic- ally, and, owing to the greater solidity of their supports, to carry them out as designed.' It was left for the Germans to cany this system to its acme of absurdity. Half the merit of the old Kound arched Gothic cathedrals on the lihine consists in their solidity and the repose they disjilay in every part. Their walls and other essential constructions are always in themselves sufficient to support the roofs and vaults, and no construc- tive contrivance is seen anywhere ; Imt when the Germans adojited the pointed style, their builders — they cannot be called architects — seemed to think that the Avhole art consisted in supporting the widest possible vaults on, the thinnest possible pillars, and in constructing the tallest windows with the most attenuated mullions. The consequence is, that though their constructive skill still excites the wonder of the mason or engineer, the artist or the architect turns from the cold vaults and lean piers of their later cathedrals with a painful feeling of unsatisfied expectation, and wonders how such dimensions and such details should produce so utterly unsatis{\ictoiy a result. So many circinnstanccs require to be taken into ccmsideration that it is impossible to prescribe any general rules in such a subject as this, but the following table will explain to a certain extent the ratio of the area to the points of support in sixteen of the principal buildings of the world.* As far as it goes, it tends to ])rove that the satisfactory architectural effect of a Iniilding is nearly in the inverse ratio to the mechanical cleverness displayed in its construction. ' It may J)e suggested that the plory of a because it enabled that art to disphiy its French clerestory filled with stained glass charms with so much brilliancy, made up for all these defects, and it may be * The numbers in the (able must be taken true that it did so; but in that case the archi- only as apjiroximative, except the last four, tectiire w.u< sncririeeaiiiting, nuove this, if the square form is still retained, it may be with more elegance and less ' There are some admirable remarks on information, and more common-sense criticism this siiVijoct ill Mr. K. L. Oarbett's ' Riuli- on the subject, than perhaps any other in our mentarj- Treatise on the Principles of Design language. ill Architecture ;' a work that contains more INTllODUCTION. xxxix accentAiation. Tho form may then change to an octagon, that to a polygon of sixteen sides, and then be sunnounted by a circular form of ■ any sort. These conditions are not absolute, but the reverse arrange- ment would be manifestly absurd. A tower with a circular base and a square upper story is what almost no art could render tolerable, while the other pleases by its innate fitness without any extraordinary effort of design. On the other hand, round pillars are more pleasing as suppoi-ts for a square architrave, not so much from any inherent fitness for the purpose as from the eflfect of contrast, and flat friezes preferable to curved ones of the late Eoman styles from the same cause. The angular mouldings introduced among the circular shafts of a Gothic coupled pillar add immensely to the brilliancy of eifcct. Where everything is square and rugged, as in a Druidical trilithon, the effect may be sublime, but it cannot be elegant ; where everything is rounded, as in the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates, the perfection of elegance may be attained, but never sublimity. Perfection, as usual, lies between these extremes. V3I. — Proportion. The properties above enumerated may be characterised as the mechanical principles of design. Size, stability, construction, material, and many such, are elements at the command of the engineer or mason as well as the architect, and a building remarkable for these propertitvs only cannot be said to rise above the lowest grade of architectuial excellence. They are invaluable adjinicts in the hands of the true artist, but ought never to be the principal elements of design. After these, the two most important resources at the command of the architect are proportion and ornament ; the former enabling him to construct ornamentally, the latter to ornament his construction ; both require knowledge and thought, and can only be properly applied by one thoroughly imbued with the true principles of architectural design. As proportion, to be good, must be modified by every varying exigence of a design, it is of course impossible to lay down aiij general rules which shall hold good in all cases ; but a few of its principles are obvious enough, and can be defined so as to enable us to judge how far they have been successfully carried out in the various build- ings enumei'ated in the following pages. To take first the simplest form of the proposition, let us suppose a room built, which shall be an exact cube — of say 20 feet each way — such a proportion must be bad and inartistic ; and besides, the height is too great for the other dimensions, apparently because it is impos- sible to get far enough away to embrace the whole wall at one view, or to see even the commencement of the roof without throwing the head back and looking upwards. If the height were exaggerated to .30 or 40 feet, the disproportion would be so striking, that no art (I 2 xl INTRODUCTION. could ix'iulcr it agreeable. As a general rule, a room square in plan is never pleasing. It is always better that one side should he longer than the other, so as to give a little variety to the design. Once and a half the width has often been recommended, and with every increase of length an increase of height is not oidy allowable, but indispensable. Some such rule as the following seems to meet most cases: — "The height of a room ought to be equal to half its width, plus the square root of its length." Tims a room 20 feet square ought to bo between 14 and 15 feet high; if its length be increased to 40 feet, its height must be at least 1()|; if 100, certainly not less than 20. If we ju-o- cecd further, and make the height actually exceed the width, the effect is that of making it look narrow. As a general rale, and especially in all extreme cases, by adding to one dimension, we take away in appearance from the others. Thus, if we make a room 20 feet Avide, and 30 or 40 feet in height, we make it narrow; if 40 wide and 20 high, we make a low room. By increasing the length, we diminish the other two dimensions. This, however, is merely speaking of plain rooms with plain Avails, and an architect may be forced to construct rooms of all sorts of tnipleasing dimensions, but it is here that his art comes to his aid, and he must be very little of an artist if he cannot conceal, even when unable entirely to counteract, the defects of his dimensions. A room, for instance, that is a perfect cube of 20 feet may bo made to loctk as low as one only 15 feet high, by using a strongly' marked horizontal decoration, by breaking the wall into different heights, by marking strongly the horizontal proportions, and obliterating as far as possible all vertical lines. The reverse process will make a room only 10 feet high look as lofty as one of 15. Even the same paper (if of strongly marked linos), if pasted on the walls of two rooms exactly similar in dimensions, but with the lines vertical in the one case, in the other horizontal, Avill alter the appa- rent dimensions of them by several feet. If a room is too high, it is easy to correct this by carrying a bold cornice to the height required, and stopping there the vertical lines of the Avail, and above this coA'ing the roof, or using some device Avhich shall mark a dis- tinction from the Avails, and the defect may become a beauty. In like manner, if a room is too long for its otlier dimensions, this is easily remedied either by breaks in the Avails Avhero these can be obtained, or by screens of cohnnns across its Avidth, or by only breaking the height of the roof. Anything which Avill divide the length into com- ]iartmcnts Avill effect this. ThcAvidth, if in excess, is easily remedied by dividing it, as the (iest in France, is by no means deficient in grandeur ; and had it been as free from the trammels of tifilitarianism as the arch, might easily have been made as simple and INTllODUCTION. xliii a« graud, witlioiit losing its apj)arent size. In tlie other case, by employing the })iiuciples wliieh tlio Gothic arcliitects elaborated witli such pains, the a})[)arent dimensions might have been increased without detracting from its solidity, and the arch rendered one of the sublimest buildings in the world. St. Peter's at Romo is an example of a total neglect of these principles. Its great nave is divided into only four bays, and the proportions and ornaments of these, borrowed generally from external architecture, are so gigantic that no one can realize the true dimen- sions of the church but by the study of the plan ; and it is not too niucli to assert, that had that cathedral been built in the Gothic style, during the 13th or 14th century, with the same dimensions, it would appear as if from one-third to one-half larger, and would have been the most sublime as well as the largest temple ever erected. It woidd be easy to multipl}'" examples to show to wdiat perfection the science of proporfion was carried during the existence of a true style of architecture, and how satisfactory the result is, even ujDon those who are not aware of the cause ; and on the other hand, how miserable are the failures that result either from the ignorance or neglect of its rules. Enough, it is hoped, has been said to show that not only are the apparent proportions of a building very much under the control of an architect independent of its lineal dimensions, but also that he has it in liis power so to proportion every part as to give value to all those around it, and to produce that harmony which in architecture, as well as in music or in painting, is the very essence of a true or satisfactory utterance. VIII. — Ornament. Architectural ornament is of two kinds, constructive and decorative. By the former is meant all those contrivances, such as capitals, brackets, vaulting shafts, and the like, which sei've to explain or give expression to the constniction ; by the latter, such as mouldings, frets, lV)liage, &c., which give grace and life either to the actual constructive forms, or to the constructive decoration. In mere building or engineering, the construction being all in all, it is left to tell its own tale in its own prosaic nakedness ; but in true architecture the constniction is always subordinate, antl with an excess of strength it need not show itself unless it is expedient to do so ; but even in an artistic point of view it always is expedient. The vault, for ii]stance, of a Gothic cathedral might just as easily spring from a bracket or a corbel as from a shaft, and in early experiments this was often tried ; but the eSect was unsatisfactory, and a vaulting shaft was carried down to the capital of the pillar, and afterwards to the floor : by this means the eye was satisfied, the thin reed-like shafts being sufficient to explain that the vault rested on the solid ground, and an apparent propriety and stability'" were given to the whole. These shafts not being necessary constructively, the artist could make them of any form or size he thought most proper, and conseqiiently, instead xliv INTRODUCTION. of one he gcnorally used three small shafts tied together at vanouf:! intervals, and afterwards merely a p'onp of the most graceful mould- ing, so that they satisfied not only the exigencies of ornamental con- struction, hut became a real and essential decorative feature of the huilding. In like manner it was good architecture to use flj'ing buttresses, even where they were not essential to stability. They explained ex- ternally that the building was vaulted, and that its thrusts were abutted and stability secured. Tho mistake in their employment was where they became so essential to secui-ity, that the constnictive neces- sities controlled the artistic propriety of the design, and the architect was forced to employ either a greater nmnber, or buttresses of greater stiength than he would have desired had he been able to dispense with them. The architecture of the Greeks was so simple, that they recjuii-ed few artifices to explain their constiTiction ; but in their trigljiihs, their nuitides, the form of their cornices, and other devices, they took pains to explain, not only that these parts had originally been of wood, but that the temple still retained its wooden roof. Had they ever adopted a vault, they Avould have employed with it a totally different system of decoration. Having no constructive use whatever, these parts were wholly under the control of the architects, and they consequently be- came the beautiful things we now so much admire. "With their more complicated style the Ixomans introduced many new modes of constructive decoration. They were the first to em- ploy vaulting shafts. In all the great halls of their Jiaths, or of their vaulted Basilicas, they applied a Corinthian pillar to the front of the pier, which really supported the vault. All these have now been removed, but without at all interfering with the stal)ility of the vault; they were mere decorative features to exjdain the construction, but in- dispensable for that purpose. They also suggested most of the other decorative inventions of the middle ages, but their architecture ncA'er reached beyond the stage of transition, so that it was left for the (Jothic architects freely to elaborate this mode of architectural effect, which they carried to an extent never dreamt of befoie, but to which their luiildings owe at least half the beauty they possess. The same system of course applies to dwelling-houses, and to the iiioanest oltjects of architectural art. The string-course that marks exter- nally tho floor line of the different stories is as legitimate and indisi)ens- able an ornament as a vaulting shaft, and it would also be well that the windows should be grouped so as to indicate the size of the rooms, and at least a ]>l;iin space left where a ])artition wall abuts, or better still a pilaster or buttress, or line of some .sort, ought to mark externally that feature of internal c(mstruction. The comico is as indisitenstible a termination of the wall as the caitital is of a pillar: and besides, it not only suggests an appropriate su]t]iort for the roof, but also eaves to throw the rain oft' the wall. Tin- same is true with legard to pediments or caps over windows : they .sngg an exception to tliis rule: they work of the pillar. INTIIODUCTION. xlvii jstcrs, as in gargoyles, or griftbns ; or sometimos in a spirit of caricatm-o they used dwarfs or deformities of varioiis sorts ; bnt tlieir sculpture, properly so called, was alwaj's provided with a niche or pedestal, where it might have been placed after the building was complete, or from which it might be removed without interfering with the archi- tecture. No oinament is so essential or so important to true architecture as sculpture, whether emploj'ed as single figures, or as bas-reliefs, or on friezes ; but wherever it is introduced, it ought to be in niches or panels, or places where pains have been taken expressly to provide that the construction shall not interfere with them, and never where they seem to have anything to do either directly or indirectly with the construction. Colour is one of the most invaluable elements placed at the command of the architect to enable him to give grace or finish to his designs. From its nature it is of course only an accessory, or mere ornament ; but there is nothing that enables him to express his meaning so cheaply and easily, and at ihe same time with such brilliancy and effect. For an interior it is absolutely indispensable ; and no apartment can be said to be complete till it has received its finishing touches from the hand of the painter. Whether exteriors ought or ought not to be similarly treated admits of more doubt. Internally the architect has complete command of the situation ; he can suit his design to his colours, or his colours to his design. Walls, roof, floor, fiimiture, are all at his command, and he can shut out any discordant element that would interfere with the desired effect. Externally this is seldom if ever the case. A facade tliat looks brilliant and Avell in noonday sun may be utterly out of harmony with a cold gray sky, or with the warm glow of a setting sun full upon it ; and unless all other buildings and objects are toned into harmony with it, the effect can seldom be harmonious. There can now be no reasonable doiibt that the Greeks painted their temples both internally and externally, but as a general rule they always placed them on heights where they coidd only be seen relieved against the sky ; and they could depend on an atmosphere of uniform, unvarying brightness. Had their tem])les been placed in groves or valleys, they would probably have given up the attempt, and certainly never woxild have ventured upon it in such a climate as ours. Except in such countries as Egypt and Greece, it must always be a mistake to apply colour by merely painting the surface of the building externally ; but there are other modes of effecting this which are perfectly legitimate. Coloured ornaments may be inlaid in the stone of the wall without interfering with the constniction, and so placed be far more effective and brilliarit than the same ornaments would be if carved in relief. Again, string-courses and moiUdings of various xlviii INTRODUCTION. coloured stones or marbles might bo employed with far better effect than can bo obtained by depth of cutting and boldness of projection. Such a mode of decoration can only be partial ; if the whole building is to be coloured, it must be done constructively, or the effect will never be satisfactoiy. In the middle ages the Italians can-ied this mode of decoration to a considerable extent ; but in almost all instances it is so evidently a veneer overlying the construction that it fails to please ; and a decoration which internally, where construction is of less importance, would excite general admiration, is without meaning on the outside of the same wall. At the same time it is easy to conceive how polychromy might l)e can-ied out successfully, if, for instance, a building were erected, the pillars of which were of red granite or poi-phpy, the cornices or string- courses of dark colouied marbles, and the plain surfaces of lighter kinds, or even of stone. A design so carried out would be infinitely more effective than a similar one executed in materials of only one colour, and depending for relief only on varj^ng shadows of daylight. 1'here is in fact just the same difficulty in lighting monochromatic buildings as there is with sculpture. A coloured painting, on the other hand, rerpiires merely sufficient light, and with that expresses its form and meaning far more clearly and easily than when only one colour is employed. The task, however, is difficult ; so much so, indeed, that there is hardly one single instance known of a complete polychromatic design being successfully carried out anywhere, though often attempted. The other mode of merely inlaying the ornaments in colour instead of relievinsi them bv carving as seldom fi\ils. Notwithstanding this an architect ought never to neglect to select the colour of his materials ^^^th reference to the situation in which his buildiufi; is to stand. A red brick building mav look remarkablv well if nestling among green trees, while the same building would be hideous if situated on a sandy plain and relieved only by the warm glow of a setting sim. A building of white stone or white brick is as ina]»})rlace, that artistic excellence was the ruling idea of the design, and in the next jilaco give it that perfect balance and synnuetry wliich seems to be as inherent a quality of the works of nature as of true art. XI. — Im^i^iox of Nature. The subject of the imitation of Nature is one intimately connected Avith those mot»ted in the preceding paragraphs, and regarding which considerable misunderstanding seems to prevail. It is generally as- sumed that in architecture we ought to cojiy natural objectts as we see INTRODUCTION. li them, whereas the truth seems to be that we ought always to cojjy the processes, never the forms of Nature. 'J'he error apparently has arisen from confounding together the iniitutivc arts of painting and sculj)tu]-e with the constructive art of architecture. The former have no otlier mode of expression than by copying, more or less literally, the fonus of Nature ; the latter, as explained above, depends wholly on a different class of elements for its effect ; but at the same time no architect can either study too intently, or copy too closely, the methods and pro- cesses by which Nature accomplishes her ends ; and the most perfect building will be that in which these have been most closely and literally followed. To take one prominent instance : — So far as we can judge, the human body is the most perfect of Nature's works ; in it the ground- work or skeleton is never seen, and though it can hardly be said to be anywhere concealed, it is only displayed at the joints or more promi- nent points of support, where the action of the frame would be other- wise unintelligible. The muscles are disposed not only where they are most Tiseful, but so as to form groups gracefully rounded in out- line. The softness and elegance of these are further aided by the deposition of adipose matter, and the whole is covered with a skin which by its beautiful texture conceals the more utilitarian construc- tion of the internal parts. In the trunk of the body the viscera are disposed wliolly without symmetry or reference to beauty of any sort — the heart on one side, the liver on the other, and the other parts exactly in those positions and in those fonus by which they may most directly and easily perform the essential functions for which they were designed. But the whole is concealed in a perfectly symmetrical sheatli of the most exquisitely beautiful outline. It may be safely asserted that a building is beautiful and perfect exactly in the ratio in which the same amount of concealment and the same amoinit of display of consti'uction is preserved, where the same symmetry is shown as between the right and left sides of the human body — the same differ- ence as between the legs and arms, where the parts are applied to different purposes, to adorn without interfering with what is useful, and wliere the same amount of ornament is added. In short there is no principle involved in the structure of man which may not be taken as the most absolute standard of excellence in architecture. The same is true of all other objects of Nature. If we could find Nature making- trees like stones, or animals like trees, or birds like fishes, or fixhes like mammalia, or using any parts taken from one kingdom for puiiioses belonging to another, it would then be jjcrfectly legitimate for us to use man's stature as the modulus for a Doric, or woman's as that of an Ionic column — to build cathedrals like groves, and make windows like leaves, or to estimate their beauty by their resemblance to sucli objects ; but all such comparisons proceed on an entire mistake of what imitation of Nature really means. It is the merest and most absolute negation of reason to apply to one purpose things that were designed for another, or to imitate them when they have no appropriateness ; but it is our highest privilege to Hi INTRODUCTION. uiulci-stand the processes of Nature. To apply these to mii- own wants and purposes is the highest stretch of human intellect and the per- fection of human ■wisdom. So instinctively, but so literally, has this correct process of imi- tating Nature been followed in all true styles of architecture, that we can always reason regarding them as we do with regard to natural objects. Thus, if an architect finds in an}- quarter of the globe a Doric or Corinthitm capital with a few traces of a foundation, he at once can tell the age of the temple or building to which it belonged. lie knows who the people were who erected it, to what purpose it was dedicated, and proceeds at once to restore its porticos, and without much uncertainty can reproduce the whole fabric. Or if he finds a few Gothic bases in sitii, Avith a few mouldings or frusta of columns, by the same process he traces the age, the size, the pui-poi-es of the building before him. A Ciivier or an Owen can restore the form and predicate the habits of an extinct animal fi-om a few fragments of bone, or even from a print of a foot. In the same manner an architect may, from a few fragments of a building, if of a true style of architecture, restore the whole of its pristine forms, and with almost the same amount of certainty. This arises wholly because the architects of those days had correct ideas of the true meaning c>f the expression and • imitation of Nature. They added nothing to their buildings which was not essential ; there was no detail which had not its use, and no orna- ment which was not an elaboration or heightening of some essential part, and hence it is that a true building is as like to a work of Nature as any production of man's hands can be to the creations of his Maker. XII. — EtIIXOGRAI'HY. It is the circumstance mentioned in the last section of the pertectly truthful imitation of Nature in all true styles of art that gives such a charm to the study, and raises the elal)oration of these principles to the dignity of a science. It leads also to one further conclusion : when men expressed their knowledge so tnithfully, they expressed also their feelings, and with their feelings their nationalit}'. It is thus that, looking on an ancient building, we can not only tell in what state of civilization its builders lived, or how far they were advanced in the arts, but we can almost certainly say also to what race they belonged, and what their affinities were with the other races or tribes of mankind. So far as my knt)wkdgc extends, 1 do not know a single exce^jtion to this rule ; and, as far as I can judge, I believe that architecture is in all instances jvs correct a test of race as language, and one far more easily applied and understood. Languages alter and become mixed, and wlien a change has once been ostalilished it is extremely difficult to follow it back to its origin, and unravel the elements which compose it ; but a building once erected stands xmchanged to testify to the time when it was built, and the feelings and motives of its builders remain stamped indelibly upon it as long as it lasts. Owing to the confusion of styles which has prevailed since the INTRODUCTION. liii Jienaissancc, this branch of the subject has been little understood or followed out; but it is the (iharacteristic which lends to the study of ancient architecture its highest value, and which, when propei'ly understood, will elevate what has been conbidcrod as a merely instructive pastime into the dignity of an important science. XIII.— New Style^ There is still one other point of view from which it is necessaiy to look at this question of architectural design before any just conclusion can be arrived at regarding it. It is in fact necessary to answer two (questions, nearly as often asked as those proposed at the beginning of this Introduction. " Can we ever again have a new and original style of architecture ?" — " Can any one invent a new style ?" Eeasoning from experience alone, it is easy to answer these questions. No individual has, so far as we know, ever invented a new style in any part of the world. No one can even be named who during the prevalence of a true style of art. materially advanced its progress, or by his individixal exertion did much to help it forward ; and we may safely answer, that as this has never happened before, it is hardly probable that it will ever occur now. If this one question must be answered in the negative, the other may as certainly be answered in the afiinnative, inasmuch as no nation in any age or in any part of the globe has failed to invent for itself a true and appropriate style of architecture whenever it chose to set about it in the right way, and there certainly can be no great difficulty in our doing now what has been so often done before, if we only set to work in a proper spirit, and are prepared to follow the same process which others have followed to obtain this result. What that process is, may perhaps be best explained by an ex- ample ; and as one of a building character, though totally distinct, let us take ship-building. Let us take a series of ships, beginning with those in which William the Conqueror invaded our shores, or the fleet with whieli Edward III. crossed over to France. Next take the vessels which transjiorted Henry VIII. to his meeting with Francis I., and then pass on to the time of the Spanish Armada, and the sea fights of Van Tromp and De Huyter, and on to the times of William III., and then through the familiar examples till we come to such ships as the AN'ellington and Marlborough, now afloat. In all this long list of examples we have a gradual, steady, forward progress, without one check or break. Each century is in advance of the one before it, and the result is as near perfection as we can well conceive. But if we ask who effected these improvements, or who invented any part of the last-named wonderful fabrics, we must search deep indeed into the annals of the navy to find out. But no one has inquired, and no one cares to know, for the simple reason that, like architecture in the middle ages, it is a true and living art, and the improvements were not efi"ected by individuals, but by all classes, e liv INTRODUCTION. owners, sailoi-s. sliipwrij^lifs, and men of science, all working topfctliei- throngh centuries, each lending the aid of his experience or his rea- soning. Jf wi' place alnngfsidc of this siTics of ships a list of churches or cathedrals, commencing with Charlemagne and ending with Charles V,, we find the same steady and assured progTcss obtained by the same identical means. In this instance, princes, priests, masons, and mathe- maticians, all worked steadily together for the whole period, striving to obtain a well-defined result. In the ship the most suifcxble materials only are employed in every part, and neither below nor aloft is there one single timber nor spar nor one rope which is supei-fluous. Nor in the cathedral was ever any material used that was not believed to be the most suitable for its pur- pose ; nor one foim of construction which did not seem the best to those who employed it ; nor any detail added which did not seem necessary for the pxirpose it was put there to express ; and the conse- quence is, that we can look on and contemplate both with the same unmitigated satisfaction. The one point where this comparison seems to halt is, that ship- Iniilding never became a purely fijie art, which architecture really is. Tlu' difference is only one of aim, which it would lie as easy to apply to the one ju't as it has been to the other. Had architecture never progressed l^eyond its one strictly legitimate object of house building, it never would have been more near a fine art than mer(;hant ship- building, and *])alaces would only have been magnified dwelling-places. Castles ajid men-of-war advanced both one stage further towards a fine art. Size and power were impressed on both, and at this stage they stand precisely equal to one another. Here ship-building halted, and has not progressed beyond, while architecture was invested with a higher aim. In all ages men have sought to erect houses more dignified and stately than those meant for themselves. They attempted the erection of dwelling-places for their gods, or tem]des worthy of the worshij) of Supreme Beings ; and it was only when this strictly useful art threw aside all shadow of utilitarianism, and launched boldly forth in search of the beautiful and the sublime, that it became a truly fine art, and took the elevated pcjsititai which it now holds above all other useful arts. It would have been easy to supply the same motive to ship- building. If we could imagine any nation ever to construct ships of (Jod, or to worship on the bosom of the ocean, shijis might easily be made such objects of beauty that the cathedral could hardly compete with them. It is not, however, only in architecture or in ship-building that this process is essential, but the progress of every art and every science that is worthy of the name is owing to the i^amc simple ])roccss of the aggregation of experiences; whether we look to metallurgy or me- chanics, cotton -s]iinning or coining, their perfection is owing to the same cause. So also the sciences — astronomy, chemistrj', geology — are all cultivated by the same means. ^\ hen the art or science is new, great men stand forth and niake great strides ; but when ]ace it by one far nobler and more worthy of our age and intelligence. No architect during the middle ages ever hesitated to pull down any part, of a cathedral tliat was old and going to decay, and to replace it witli something in the style of the day, however incongruous that }night be ; and if wo were progressing us they were, we should liave as little com- punction in following the same course. In the confusion of ideas and of styles which now jirevails, it is satisfactory to be able to ccmtemplato, in the Crystal Talace at Syden- ham, at least one great luiilding carried out wholly in the princi])les of Gothic or of any true style of art. No material is used in it which is not the best for its puqiose, no constructive exixdient employed which was not absolutely ess.'utial, and it depends wholly for its cifect on the ai rangement of its parts ,iny a very analogous case. In * A curious negative corioboratiou of this Eurmah, a country of comparatively modern exists in the fact that neither Megasthenes settlement, no buildings, with the exception nor any (jreek writer ever alludes to any of temples, are allowed by law to be con- temple or remarkable building as existing in stiucted of brick or stone. Consequently India, which could hardly have been the case tliere are only a few pagodas in that country had any existed. )5 9 4 HANDBOOK OF APiCniTFXTURE. Book I. and aiuiiseinents of those of his raiik. At the a}2;e of 35, he — to use the hxngnaj^o of his foHowers — attained to Huddhahood, and sjicnt the reniaiiiin<; 45 years of his life wandering through the various countries of Iiiilia, ]>r(nnulp»tiiig tlioso doctiines which snhseqiiently obttiined such universal acccptancu in all the countries of Kastcrn iVsia. One or two points in the doctrines of Buddhism will be necessary to be borne in mind. The present Buddha — Sakya Muni, or Sinha as he is generally called — is held to be only the fourth of the great Bmhlhas. I lis three i)redecessors, Kakusanda, Konagamma, and Kasy- a]ia, are su]ipttsed to liave existed in extremely remote ages. Tlieir history, as might be exi)ccted, is a mere mass of fables and absurdities. The Buddhists expect a fifth manifestation of the Deity in the person of Maitri Buddlia. who is supposed to bo now going through the iniiumeiable transmigrations necessary to the attainment of Bud- dhahood : these transmigrations being an essential part of the whole system. We shall find, in speaking of Thibet, a curious extension of tlie belief. There the divine soul is held to pass immediately from one ])elai Lama to his successor, so that tlioy are never Avithout a living manifestation of the lower class of Buddhas, which they believe their great Lamas to be. It is still a disputed point among the learned whether Sakya ^Muni was the original inventor of this religicm, or even its first introducer into India. There are many and stnuig reasons for supposing that he cannot even aspire to this last distinction, for there are certainly many traces of the existence of at least a similar faith, in that country, before his time ; though he no doubt gave it that mode of worship, and fixed upon it those peculiar doctrines, which aftei'wards distinguished it fi'om the other religions of the land. Traces exist of very similar institu- tions, long before the time of Buddha, in Ethiopia, and as far west as ( 'yrene. In Syria we have something very similar to it in the tenets of the sect of the Essenes ; and at P>abyl(m it is nearly certain that a religion closely allied to it was long tlie faith of a large section of the lieoi)le. Pythagoras, the contemporary of Sakya ]\Ium, introduced doctrines of the same class at Crotona, in Ifcily ; and in Persia the sect of tlie Magi adopted rites and practices so simijar, that it is not easy always to detect the distinction between them. Immediately after the death of Sak>a Muni, the first great convoca- tion or c(uincil of his followers and disciples was held at Rajagriha in P.ehar, and a second about a century afterwards at Vaisjila on tlie (Junduck, o]iposite Patna ; and though, if we may believe the tradi- tions, these assemlilies were most numerously attended by thousjuids of priests from all parts of the country, we have still no proof of the religion having been generally adopted at that time by either the people or their rulei's. W e know that Chandragujjta. so familiar to us as the Sandracottus of Alexander's historians, still adhered, with all his court, to the old Braliminical faith ; so did his son Bimbasaro. His grandson Asoka, however, after leaching the imperial throne by the murder of his hundred brothers, forsook the faith in wliich lie liad been brought up, Chap. I. INTIIODUCTOIJY. 5 and adopted tliaf ol" I'liddha. lie then, witli tlic zeal ufa new eonveii;, used the influeuce he possessed nn the most i)owerful monarch of India in those ages, to establish it as the state religion of the conntry. lie afterwards extended it to Ceylon on the south, and Afglianistau on the nortli ; though, as hhatcd above, there is reason for suspecting that something similar to it existed before his time in the last-named country, one of the original seats of the Arian race. It was in the seventeenth year of the reign of this king that the third convocation was held in the city of Palibothra, the modern Patna, almost exactly 300 years after the death of the founder of this religion, where the doctrines and fornndas of the faith seem finally to have been settled. It is of more impoi-tance to our present pui-jiose, that wdth this king (250 B.C.) the architectural history of India com- mences : not one building nor one sculptured stone having yet been found in the length and breadth of the land which can be proved to date before his accession. From his time, however, the series of ukjuu- ments, some monolithic, some rock-cut, and others built, is toleiably complete during the ten or twelve centuries in which Buddhism con- tinued to be a prevalent religion in the country of its birth. After this we lose the thread of our architectural narrative in India Proper, but it is continued in C'e^don, Burmah, Java, Thibet, and China, to the present day; and we pro})Ose to follow it through all the mutations it has undergone in these different lands, before considering the other styles that arose and still exist in India. Each of them will occupy a niche to itself in the following order. After the Buddhist styles, as above enmuerated, will come — 1. The Jaiiia style, a corruption of the pure Buddhist by admixture with the Hindu style. 2. The Soutfwni Hindu, a style of architecture of the Tamul races of the South. 3. Northern Himhi, a cognate style, occurring in the Valley of the Ganges .and its tributaries. 4. The modern. Hindu, or that fonn which Indian architecture took after being modified by the influence of the j\Iahometan styles. 5. The Cashnirian and other aberrant styles, which cannot be included under any of the preceding heads. HANDBOOFv OF ARCHITECTURE. Book I. CHAPTER II. BUDDHIST AKCHITECTURE. CONTENTS. Divisiou of subject — Topes, Sanchi — Temples, Karli — Monasteries, Ajunta Uruameutation of caves. CHRONOLOGICAL MEMOllANDA. DATES. DATES. Birtli of GauUima Uudiilia . ... B.C. 623 | Cuttack caves, from 200 b.c. to alxiul Christian era. I)cuth of Gautama Buddha, and first con- i Topes al Bilsali . 2nd ceut. b.c. to 2nd or 3rd a.v. Vocation huld 543 Cliandragiipta, con tem]K)rary of Alexander 325 Aaoka: third convocation held. Buddh- ism made the relit,'ion of the state. Ijflts erected. K.irliest monuments and inscriptions in India 250 Dasaratha, his grandson. Earliest caves in Bebar about200 Vicramaditya buildings at Oiyein . . . b.c. 56 Salivah;ma cave at Karli A.D. 79 Topes at Manikyala 1st cent. b.<:. to 3rd or 4th a.d. Topes in AfghanisUin . 1st cent. a.d. to 5th or 6tb. Caves at Ajunta Isl cent. a.d. to loili or llth a.d. Caves at Ellora . 5th cent. a.d. to stli or 9th A.D. Topes at Samath .... 6th to 9th cent. a.d. The exaiii])le.s -which remain of Buddhist architecture have hitherto been iuii)eifectly exaiuiucd, and are ss of liuildiugs. They consist of detached pillars, towers, and tumuli, all of a sjicred or moniunental character. The word is a coiTuption of the Sauscrit sthnixi, meaning a moiuid, heap, or caini. 2. Temples. — Known fis Chaifi/a halls, or caves. 3. Monasteries. — I Uiaras, being the residences of the priests. TovKi. This chtss includes edifices diftering from one another i)rineipally in the purposes for Avhicli they were erected. The oldest and simj)lest topes were single pillars (.sY//(;»i'r/.s), either carved out of one stone or regularly built ; the former l)eing distingnished aw Lufs. The oldest monument** hitherto discovered in India are a group of these monoliths set up by Ascjka in the middle of the third centuiy B.C. Tliey were all alike in tonn. and all bore the sjinie in.scription. licing four .* ]H'ris]ied. AVe know that the great tope of Sanchi had one oi- two such monoliths in front of each of its gateways, and the great caves of Karli (woodcut No. 18) and Kennari show ' g[i^^ liad recently embracetl.' Of tliese one is at Delhi, having been re- erected by Feroose Shah in his pabice, as a monument of his victory over the Hindus. Three more are standing near the river Gunduck, in Tirhoot ; and one, represented in the annexed woodcut (No. 1), has recently been placed on a pedestal in the fort of Allahabad. A fragment of anotlier was discovered near Delhi, and part of a seventh was used as a roller on the Benares road by a Com- l)any's engineer ofHcer. The following description of the Allahabad pillar will of c(.)U)-se serve for all. It is one stone, 42 ft. 7 in. in height, of which 7 ft. 7 in." may be considered as the base, which probably was buried to some extent in the ground, or in the masonry that supported it. The shaft, projierly so called, '^^x\^ was 3 ft. in diameter at the hixse, diminish- ing to 2 ft. 2 in. at the li:;:^:':';:: . ■;!« •1/ ', ■ ■''T'. i-:,hi-m ';':'"-iK Vi mi' q I r . ^.II.S '! i. □k ■^ — ■'i'^ . Lut ul AUaliabud. ' TraiislateJ by .1a^. I'liiiso]!, in tlio sixth * 'I'liese diinensioiih are t;ikcii iVuin ('apt. volume of the Heiigal Journal of the Asiatic Biiit's ilia\vini;s jmblished in the J. A. S. 15., Society, p. 566 ct scq. vol. iii. plate 3. 8 liUDDHIST AKCIHTECTURE. Book 1. similar pillai-s cut in the rock in front and on each sitle of tlic entrance of the ^-roat halLs, which, therefore, we may assume to he their proper position. There is no instance, so far as I am aware, of a built monumental jiillar now standing in India. This is sufficiently accounted for by the ease with which they could be thrown doAvn and their materials removed, when they had lost the sanctity by which alone they had been })rotectcd. There arc, how- ever, two such pillars among the topes of Cabul, and evidently coeval with them, now called the Surkh Miliar, and ]\Iinar Chakri. These are ascribed by the traditions of the place to Alexander the Great, though they are evidently liuddhist monu- ments, meant to mark some sacred spot, or to commemorate some event, the memory of which has passed away. They are probably of the third or fourth century of our era, and their shape and outline exhibit great degeneracy from the purer forms with which architecture com- menced in India, and which were there reting one of the principal characterLstics of l>uddhism. In some of the tojics which have been opened regvdar relic-chambers are found, some still furnished ^v^th the relics themselves, others ])lundered of their treasure. These were projierly designated as tkir/Dhas (from dhntn, relic, and (lalilm or (jarlKi, shrine or womb), of whieh the word pagoda ajtpears to be a 4. Surkli Minar, Cabul. From a drawing by Mr. Arasson in Wilson's Ariima Antiqua. ' 1 Kin^s vii. l(i, ct scq. c'i[Ai>. II. Tor?:s. 9 corruption. Other topes have been found to contain neither relic nor relic-chamber, and these must have been erected to nuirk some sacred spot or ct)nuueniorate some event in tlie history of I'uddlia or of his religion. The origin of relic-worship is thus accounted for by the traditions of JJuddhism. It is said that at the death of the founder of the religion eiglit cities disi)uted the possession of his mortal remains. The diliticulty of a decision was avoided by a disti"ibution to each of some portion of the sacred relics. Of these by far the most famous is the Tooth relic, which, till the last few years, was so carefully guarded by the British govern(n's of (Jeylou, as the Palladium of our sovereignty over that island. This originally foil to the lot of Kalinga, and was magnificently enshrined on the spot where now stands the celebrated temple of Juggernath at ruri. Here it remained till the fourth cen- tury, when it was conveyed for a short time to Patna, then the capital of the country. After pei-forming many miracles there it was restored to its original place of deposit, but only for a very short time ; — for, on the invasion of the country by strangers from the East, it was conveyed to Ceylon, concealed in the hair of the king's daughter : it was received there in the year 311 of our era, and has ever since continued the most precious treasure of the realm.' Besides this, Ceylon possesses the left Collar-bone relic, enshrined in the Thuparamya pagoda at Anuradhapoora (woodcut 31), and the Thorax-bone, enshrined at Bintenne, near Kandy. The Mahawanso, or groat Buddhist history of Ceylon, describes the mode in which this last building was raised, by successive additions, in a manner so illustrative of the principle on which these relic-shrines arrived at completion, that it is well worth qiioting: — "The chief of the Devos, Sumano, supplicated of the deity worthy of offerings for an offering. The Vanquisher, passing his hand over his head, bestowed on him a handftil of his pure blue locks from the groAving hair of the head. Receiving and depositing it in a superb golden casket, on the sjjot where the divine teacher had stood, he enshrined the k)ck in an emerald dagoba, and bowed down in worship. " The thero Sarabhu, at the demise of the suprenie Buddha, receiving at his fiuieral pile the Thorax-bone relic, brought and deposited it in that identical dagoba. This inspired personage, causing a dagoba to be erected 12 cul)its high and enshrining it, thereon de- parted. The younger brother of King Devenampiatisso (b.c. 250), discovering this marvellous dagoba, constructed another encasing it, 30 cubits in height. "King Duttagamini (b.c. IGl), while residing there, during his subjugation of the Malabars, constructed a dagoba, encasing that one, 80 cubits in height." " Thus was the Mahiyangana dagoba completed."* It is possible ' See account, of Tooth relic liy the Hon. xv. p. 2(>o, &c. &c. G. Tunioiir, .'. A. S. B., vol. vi. p. 8r>(> it - Abstracted linni 'rumour's Jlahawaji.so, seq. Sterling t'uttack, Trans. A. S. B., vol. p. 4. 10 l',n)l)II[t^T ARCHITECTURE. Book J. that at each succetssivo addition some new deposit wa« made ; at least UKtst of the topes examined in Afghanistan and the Punjanb show signs of these successive increments, ami successive deposits, one alK)ve the other. About 30 topes have been opened near liilsfih by Major Cunning- ham, of the Bengal Engineers, and Lieut. Maisey, ten of which have yielded relics of the most interesting character. One tope contained relics of tlie two principal disciples of Buddha; another of Moggali- jmtra, who presided over the third great convocation held by Asoka. Others contained relics of those missionaries whom we know to have l)een sent by Asoka to convert the nations of the Himalaya and of the banks of the Indus, liclics were found of other priests and saints whose names and acts are still iniknown to us. The whole of these discoveries tend to confirm to a very great extent the traditions that have come down to us, besides making the intent and pui-pose of these buildings perfectly clear and intelligil)le. By far the finest as well as the most perfect tojie in India is that of Sanchi, the ])rincipal one of those opened near Bilsah, in Central India. It is uncertain whether it ever contained relics or not, as it had been dug into in 1819 by Sir Herbert Maddock, since which time it has nnuaincd a ruin, and may have been ])lundcred by the Uiitives. At any rate it must have been a s])ot of peculiar sanctity, judging both from its own magnificence and fi-om the number of subordinate topes grouped around it. In fact there are a greater number of these monu- ments on this spot, within a space not exceeding 17 miles, than tliere are. so far at least as we now know, in the whole of India from the Sutlej to Cape Comorin. The general appearance of the Sanchi Tope will be understood View of Sancbi Tope. from the view of it (woodcut No. 6), and its sha])e ami anaiig. ni.nl from tlie plan and section (Nos. 6 and 7). From these it will lu observed that tlie princijial building consists of a ilome sijmewhat less than a hemis].here, 10(i feet in diameter, and 42 feet in height, with a l-latfoi-m on the top 34 feet across, which originally formed the basis CllAl'. II. TOPE AT SANCHI. LNT RANCr of the tee or cupitul, which was the invariable finish of these monu- ments.' The dome rests on a sloijinjj; base, 14 feet in height by 120 in diameter, having an olfset on its summit about G feet Avido. This, if we may judge from the representa- tions of topes on the sculptiires, must have been surrounded by a balustrade, and was ascended by a broad double ramp on one side. It was probably used for processions encircling the monument, which seem to have been among the most conmion Buddhist ceremonials. The centre of this great mound is qxiite solid, being composed of bricks laid in mud ; but the exterior is faced with dressed stones.' Over these was laid a coating of cement nearly 4 inches in thickness, which was, no doubt, originally adorned either wath painting or ornaments in relief. 6. Plan of Tope at Sanchl. ^-^^^^^^^^^^I^^^^^^S^^^^J^^^^^^^^^^S^^^i^^-V 5 10 liinll-Jll 1. Section of Tope at Sauchi. The fence by ^vhich this tope is surroimded is extremely curious. It consists of stone posts 8 ft. 8 in. ^ high, and little more than 2 ft. apart. Tliese are surmounted by a plain archi- trave, 2 ft. 4 in. deep, slightly rounded at the top. So far this enclosure re- sembles the outer circle at Stunelu'iige ; but between every two uprights three horizontal cross-pieces of stone are in- serted, of an elliptical foiTu, of the same depth as the top ])iece, but only 9 in. thick in the thickest part. This is the only built example yet discovered ^ 0 ■i55i^^^^^^^^^^JJS^';" ■'■'^»f^y^ Stone bahistiado fonniiij; the enclo- sure at Sandii. ' The diawini^s, j)lans, &c., are tivken from a Memoir by (.'apt. ,1. 1 ». t'uiuiiiigliani, J. \. S. R., August, 1847. 12 liUDDHiST Alien ITECTUllE. Book T. of an architectural ornament which is found carved in evety cave, ami, imlocil. In almost every ancient linddhist Iniildinp; knoAvn in India. Thi' uiiiM<;lit ])i>st.s or ])illars of this (■nrlosiirc hear inscriptions iudicatinj;- that tlicy were all <;iven l»y iliil'crent individuals. i'nt neither these nor any other inscriptions foinid in the whole tope, or in the smaller topes surrounding it (though there are as many as 250 inscriptions in all), contain any known name, or any clue to their age.' Still more curious, however, than even the stone railing are the four giitcwaj's. One of these is sho\\7i in the general view of the buildings (woodcut No. 5). It consists of two square pillars, covered with stulptures, with hold elephant capitals, rising to a height of IS ft. 4 in, ; above this are three lintels, slightly cun-ed upwards in the centre, and ending in Ionic scrolls ; they are supported by con- tinuations of the colimms, and three uprights inserted in the spaces between the lintels. They are covered with elaborate sculptures, and sunnouiited by emblems. The total height is 8;} ft. 6 in. One gateway has fallen, and if removed to this country would raise the character of Indian sculpture, as nothing comparable to it has yet been transported from that part of the world to Europe.* No account has been pxdjlished of the other topes, 30 or 40 in nundoer, composing this group. We only know that none are so large tis the one just described : some are not more than G ft. in diannster, and in no instance are the enclosures and gateways so comiilete as those of the great Tope.^ Though the inscriptions, as has been said, fail to give tis the date of these tojies, the characters in which they are written, together with the architectin'o of the buildings, prove that they must be as old as tlic Christian era. They could not have been anterior to Asoka's time (i3.c. 250), so that we obtain an approximation to their age/ Manikyala. The only other very important group of topes now knoAvn to exist in India is that at JManikyala, the Taxila of Alexanders historians, situated between the Indus and the Jelum, or Hydsispes. The prin- cipal stnicture there is a tope, nearly of the same dimensions in ground- ])lan as that at Sanchi, but taller, being between 70 and 80 ft. in height, while the latter is only 5<) ft. It differs also in appearance, the dome being a i)erfect hemisphere, and the offset of the b.ise omitted. The base itself is far more ornate, being surrounded by a series of dwai-f ' The celebrated Chandiaj;iipta inscrip- niiigliain (J. A. S. H., Aug. 1847, ]>. 74(i et tion on tlie eastern piteway (J. A. S. li., vol. «''/.), the illustrations of which, thon^h iii- vi. |). 4.">4) is evidently a siil)seeloni;s to the fourth century A.I). pies and monasteries at the same place. * One of these gateways is engraved in ■* Since this work went to pres.s, Majoi-, great detail, and to a lar^^e scale, as a title- now Col., Cunningham's work on these j)age to the author's Illustrations of Indian Topes has been jiublished in this country, Aicliitcifuie. anil, though full of interesting details and ' The above particulais have been taken illustiations. adds little to the infoiniation from a ])aper by the late Cajit. .1. !>. (/un- jireviously obtained. Chap. IT. 'VOVK AT MANIKYALA. i:5 pilasters in low relief, prol:)iil)ly as a snbstitTite for the independent railing of the Sanelii Tope. These M. Court describes as having capitals with ranis' heads (tpieri/, bulls' ?), like those at I'ersepolis.' This is likely enough in itself, but could scarcely have failed to be mentioned by the accurate Elphinstone,* had it been correct. This tope was opened in 1830 by General Ventura ; and three separate deposits of relics were found at the depths of about 25, 45, and 65 ft. respectively, each apparently increasing in value with its depth fi'oni the top. \V ith these were buried a great niuuber of coins, besides many placed intermediately between the principal deposits. From these it appears that the upper deposit is certainly as modern as the time of the Sassanidoe, being of the fourth or fifth century. But the lower relics may be two centuries earlier, though the evidence on this point is by no means so clear as might be desired, nor were the excavations so carried on as to show whether the tope had reached its present dimensions by successive additions like that at Bintenne (p. 0), or Avhether it had been erected at once. The former was probably the case, judging from the difierent depths at which the relics were found. The most important relic appears to have been a brown liquid contained in a box with an inscription on its lid. When this inscrip- tion shall have been deciphered, we shall probably know in honour of what saint this vast mound was erected. There are at least 15 other topes in this group, one of which was opened by M. Coiirt, who found in a square chamber, 10 ft. above the level of the ground, a gold cylinder enclosed in one of silver, and that again in one of copper. The inner one contained -i gold coins, 10 precious stones, and 4 pearls. These were no doubt the relics which the tope was intended to preserve. The inscription was illegible, so that we cannot ascertain to whom they belonged. There were silver coins in the tope, and in the cylinders, though not in the innermost one. These are Roman Consular coins^ of Mark Antony and Augustus Cajsar. The others are Bactrian and native coins, generally supposed to be near the Christian era in date, so that we can have no hesitation in ascribing the tope to the first century. It is so ruined externally that we can form no comparison of the probable age of this and the others. The dates therefore of the greater part of these topes must remain micertain till they have been systematically examined. A very large enclosure of a tojie is foiind at Amravati, near the mouth of the river Kistna, in the IMadras territory. It now bears the name of Dipal-dinna, or IMount-of-liglit, but why it is so calhul has not hithei-to been accoimted for. The annexed plan (No. 9) will explain the general arrangement of the place. The tank shown in the centre is nt)t an original part of the stnicture. Its excavati( )n ' J. A. S. B., Vol. iii. J). 557. drawn by the author. .1. A. S. B., vol. iii. * Journey to Cabul. The view in his p. 314 et seq. work, though the best we has-e, is not pro- ^ J. A. S. B., vol. iii. pp. 5G0 and 635. bably to be depended upon. It was not 14 HUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE. Book I. >.t; 4^> 9. was comnicneed in the last century, and continiied in the present, till sumo troubles in the district caused it to he abandoned and left as it MOW is, incomplete. As far }i.sthe traditions collected hy Colonel Mackenzie are Intel - ligil)le, the monu- ment in the centre wa.s o])ened by a lo- cal liaja in search of treasu'-e, but, failing in finding any, he de- ti'rmined to utilize the space he had cleared by forming in it a reservoir of water. These opera- tions have effectually destroyed all trace of what the cen- tral shrine originally consisted of. It can scarcely have been a large and solid mound like that of Sanchi, because, if so, an immense ma.s.s of worthless material has been entirely removed, while many stones of far greater value, and easily transported, remain in situ. From the great size of the whole enclosure, and fi-om the care and labour displaj'cd in the parts which remain, we may conclude the central shrine to have been some object highly ornamented and of great sjvnctity.' These remaining parts consist piineipally of two concentric circles of npriglit stones, the outer 19.] ft. in diameter, and between the two a paved jjathway 13 ft. in -w-idth. The upright stones are not, like those of the Druidical circles in Europe, mere nnshaped masses, but are cant'd with a minuteness unkno^\^l anywhere else, even in India, 'i'his may lie seen both in the elaborate and beautiful drawings which ( "olonel ^Mackenzie caused to be made of them — copies of which exist at ^ladras, Calcutta, and in the East India House — and also in speci- mens of the stones themselves, which he sent to all these places. \\ ith our impoifect knowledge of Buddhist history, it is impossible to identify jiiany of the scenes and siibjects represented, but they cer- taiidy form one of the most complete illustrations of Bnddliist foi-ms and traditions that can possibly be conceived. Besides these two circles of stones, the remains f )f two < if its gate- Toi)e of Amraviili. From a MS. plan in thf India House. Scale 10(1 fl. lo 1 in. • Tho p.-jrticulars from which the account Collection in the Indi.i House, and .i pajjer iin